Or any thread Cees is involved with........

FB

Oh, I don't know, always a giggle to drop in now and again, just to see where he's going next...
Evan.

Gents,

Reconstructing a history that’s forgotten is just as counting.

If people can count to 10, they never can count back further than 10, even there are 100 men trying.
I can count back as far as Darwin in the history of evolution, no limitation, when talking about the Taurus.
I do not need anybody to do that. I do that alone. I count alone.

When you believe my history you are “up to date again” , the end of the process.

When you can count to 10, I can learn you to count to 20 but you cannot let me forget 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20.
That is what some people forces me to do.

Trying to stop this thread doesn’t work either, read post 1 again,

"If there are members interested let me know and I’ll make the show."
"If not? No problem, I will continue the process back stage. "

There were members interested, it is told in this thread several times, it is showed with 21032 hits.

Rules to follow the show:
It is free to visit.
About arguing? That’s limited to “about the process”, not the facts. The facts are all proved (double checked) and I do not show these proves.
More to come.

Cees

Gents there still are questions to answer, posts to check.

Post 447, page 18.
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_79...tm.htm#8676189

Post 451, Page 20
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_79...19/key_/tm.htm

I did mentioned Darwin again and do for a while some archeology, said “digging a hole in history”.
In normal flight the stab incidence is nearly 0 degrees in cruise flight, so to compare, I did measure the angles between stab neutral line and TE fins/LE rudder.

Results,
Orion 17, Nimbus 32, (Flop ? not important), First Contest Taurus (Oldest Taurus on Earth) 45, Taurus 30 and Apogee/Perigee 38, Simla 45
This is also the sequence of existing in my schedule.

Of the Nimbus and Apogee/Perigee is told they were Orion inspired but that’s not true, that’s clear.
The Nimbus was, but the Apogee and perigee were Taurus inspired.
The Oldest Taurus on Earth already did fly in 1961 and the first “commercial” Taurus did fly probably on Thursday November 23, 1961 Thanksgiving Day. (No double check possible!)

Start design of the Apogee and Perigee was November and start and building the planes was December 1961, first flight March 1962.
We can read :“We sloped the rudder hinge angle more for reliable spin entries”
It is clear to me Tom did follow the results of the Taurus(ses) of Ed Kazmirski just as in the past with the Nimbus, Orion inspired.

Some interesting facts:

The Apogee did live very short! Seconds after start, March 1962.
What we read, the engine thrust of 7 lb per HP was much for the smaller airframe and probably, the side thrust of 2 degrees too less.
What did I discover about the side thrust of the Oldest Taurus on Earth and the way Ed Kazmirski does that?
Yes, he doesn’t take any risk and could start with 4 degrees side thrust If he wanted by using the right adjustment of the mounting plate?

Anything else Taurus inspired?
Not only the rudder hinge angle was Taurus inspired, also the dimensions.
The length of the Apogee and Perigee are nearly the same as of the first contest Taurus/Oldest Taurus on Earth of Ed Kazmirski, (comparing the lengths of the fuses, propeller/bottom fuse LE rudder).
Compare with the Nimbus, Tom did speak about a complete new design, and I say: Taurus inspired

Cees

When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Gents,

I did make a picture to show the fuselage lengths.

Top, Oldest Taurus on Earth, replica of the first contest Taurus of Ed Kazmirski.
Second the Perigee, I did make a straight line of the rudder hinge line to the bottom of the fuselage
Third the Nimbus, also with the rudder hinge line to the bottom of the fuselage.

The picture of the fuselage I did make as good as possible, long distance, in not so good weather conditions, rain.
(look to the Tour the France on TV and you know.)

The three pictures are scaled as good as possible within 1 %.
The wingposition of the Perigee is more to the back, the wing is tapered but has a (nearly?) straight LE.
The wing of the Taurus is tapered.
The length of the Nimbus is more, see the red square.

Cees

According to posts in Ed Kazmirski's Taurus, Ed flew the FLOP, (or the Orion-based hybrid) in the 1961 NATS, (see attachment). As you say Tom flew the Nimbus...in 1961.

As Tom states in the article you quoted from, the Perigee/Apogee was taken from the Nimbus, with no mention of any other inspiration. He says he increased fin area somewhat (from the Nimbus) citing an undesirable characteristic that was sometimes present with that design. I saw the Nimbus designs, and the fin is indeed smaller than the Perigee.

If anybody inspired anybody, Brett inspired Kazmirski since the Nimbus-2 predated the Taurus, and the Nimbus 1 predated the Nimbus 2.

I do not doubt so it is useless to manipulate!

Cees

IS THIS SUPPOSED TO MEAN SOMETHING??[]

No attempt at manipulation, but apparently another instance of not agreeing with something stated as being a fact early in the Ed Kazmirski's Taurus thread. Even Jim Kimbro, (who is not on anyone's side as far as I know...maybe even Cees's), stated Ed crashed his 1961 entry, Jim said "...This report coupled with the fact that the modified Taurus he flew at the 1961 Nats was destroyed..."

I was under the impression that everyone, (even Cees), agreed Ed's 1961 Taurus entry was the so-called FLOP mentioned above, but upon closer examination I see Cees did not accept that Ed flew that plane as stated by PIMMNZ in post 131 on page 6. The picture above was said to have been taken at the 1961 NATS, and most of us took him at face value when he said it came from NATS coverage of 1961. Does Cees believe Ed crashed his Oldest Taurus at the 1961 NATS? If not, what did he crash in 1961? Was the report quoted by Jim wrong as well...maybe Ed didn't crash.

The FLOP has been described by Cees an "not important...", but everything needs to be accounted for. What does Cees believe about the plane in the picture? Do you even think it's Ed's plane? Was the magazine account mentioned in post 131 page 6 of "EK Taurus" wrong? I don't know, but we have to take into account ALL the evidence; not just the evidence that supports our theory.

I think we make our mistake when we get "sucked into", (like I just did), responding to outrageous claims that are made rather than ignoring them. I don't know about the rest of you, but I still have the "notify me when someone replies" set to "yes", a definite "rubbernecking trainwreck" problem as was mentioned earlier. It's best to not respond...it doesn't "pay" to respond, but we can't help but wonder about what is coming next from the man who "knows all things" about the Taurus. I think most of the nearly 21,000 hits come from people wanting to see "what's next" from Cees whether or not it corresponds to the evidence.

Cees, you have become so publically invested in your own theory that you can't afford to change any of it...even if you wanted to. The theory becomes more important than any evidence presented.

Before you invite me to leave as well, let me do so on my own.

Gents,

When a history is disturbed it is possible to reconstruct.

Take all the facts you can find, give them a logical position in the time schedule, a qualification untrue/true and value, and start. Start reconstruct the history.
What I did do in the past is also redesign the crate Taurus the best I could and the process I did show you.

It would have been possible I could not finalize the project, I did tell that, lack of details, lack of information, lack of methods, lack of accuracy, lack of energy, lack of time.
Trying to build the plane did have a reason for me! "Lack of assistance."
I only did have the assistance of Hanna and then drawings are not enough we need the real plane/replica again.
The possibility of making pictures is what I did need, because I knew there would be a moment we were talking about these

Dimensions:

The most important post about dimensions, I think, is the last post 25 of page 1. If you are interested, read it again.
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_7950207/tm.htm

Conclusion, the first contest Taurus of Ed was much shorter than the later Taurus we all know
Compere the picture 1 start of the project 13/9/2008 and picture 2 after the measurements in 4/10/2008
It is the same as the evolution, all has to fit later, and the examples you do not have to search for they come later their own way.

Some examples, only about dimensions!

Earlier the stab of the first contest Taurus is 67 % of the later designed Simla.
See Ed Kazmirski’s Taurus thread: post 1587 page 64 date 5/22/2009

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_76...tm.htm#8796206

And now the Perigee and Apogee fuse dimensions when compare the fuselage, post 554 and 556, page 23.

Why this post?

First, it is nice to read, going back in the moment it was not all for sure I could finish the project on the date 4 Octobre 2008, 9 months back.

Second, as important as the last posts on page one, also this is a remarkable milestone in the projects that gives the project body and protects the Wester Taurus to crash. The plane was short as the later Perigee and Apogee!!!!

Third, the reason again I will fly the plane after you all believe this first Contest Taurus of Ed Kazmirski really exist, I need the plane every day, also in the future to defend myself and the project.

More to come.

Cees

Bob/aerobic wannabe and gents

I bring a post of you, Bob, back under intention for a while.
The post is from the Ed Kazmirski’s Taurus thread, page 38.
Maybe you still follow the threads?

Two later posts of you, you find also on page 38.

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_76...tm.htm#8311434

It is the period 1957, 1960 as you write about (we did not speak each other!), but not for sure know the planes you did see. (in the second post)

The planes you did see Ed Kazmirski and Bob Schultz flying, only can be tricycle Orions.
See the picture of Jim Messer, the picture you probably are talking about, plane on the left side.

If somebody has pictures of 1961 of USA pattern flying I am interested, any date, any place!
I need them to fill a black hole in the history of the USA Pattern Flying as good as possible.

Cees

Gents,

May I present you, Harold the Bolt, first picture!

A short message why people did talk about the pattern program in 1959 and later, Yellow Square, and I think the first steps to the modern “turn around” program, green square.
But what was also interesting, red square, vertical rolls!!!
All from one article about the AMA rules for Multi pattern flying.

April 1962 Ed Kazmirski “Our Mr. K goes to Africa”, picture 2

“Had a light Taurus with me and was able to make clean vertical rolls even o 5000 Foot!

Ed was ready to fly the “turn around” program, already inclusive the vertical rolls, even on 5000 feet. No problem with the good old K & B 45 and his “Light Taurus” (low drag).
B.T.W. This was during the Top Flite promotion trip so he is talking about the “Other than Top Flite Taurus”.

Picture 3 the replica of that “Light Taurus”, ready to fly the important maneuver, not to forget in the test program.
Just to show some Victory Rolls above the Victoria Falls in Rhodesia.

Cees

Gents,

We are talking about Classic Pattern Flying,'
I think also we are talking about one of the most important planes of Classic Pattern Flying.
We are talking about details, extra hinges!

I do show the positions on the picture of the location of the extra hinges Ed Kazmirski did make on this wings when he later did use these in Belgium 1963.
He did combine these wings with the fuselage of the first Top Flite preproduction and promotion Taurus.

Cees

WHAT "Top Flite preproduction and promotion Taurus".

Do you have any evidence for this, or is this just something you figured MUST have taken place, but can't prove? What about the "facts"....you say you only deal in "facts". There is no real "scientific evidence" for a "preproduction" Taurus" or a "promotion" Taurus is there? You talk about my "stories", but it seems this is a concept of yours that came "out of thin air"

What I am trying to say here is that 45+ years later, all of us are going to have to make some judgements, or best guesses about what we feel is the most likely course of events. You believe in a "preproduction Taurus" that Ed flew at some point. I believe Ed designed and built his own planes, and that he made modifications to each plane be built...he didn't fly a "preproduction Taurus". Anybody witnessing Ed's flying would never have been able to tell whether it was an exact preproduction Taurus or one of his own...it didn't have to be an exact Top Flite kit.

What actually happened is nearly impossible to tell, and he is no longer here to ask. Only witnesses who knew Ed might be able to tell us for sure. So far after the fact, we all have suppositions.

Duane

Here dhall22 this I do call trolling, in my thread, I do not like this.
Try to run a thread by yourself.

Cees

Gents,

If somebody has pictures of 1961 of USA pattern flying I am interested, any date, any place!
I need them to fill a black hole in the history of the USA Pattern Flying as good as possible.

Cees

Gents,

Often is told by other members: “How can you be so sure of the facts?”
I give an example!

On page 1 : “Ed Kazmirski’s Taurus” with a picture of Ed Kazmirski with his Orion sometimes before we can read:

Pimmnz, Post 17 of Ed Kazmirski’s Taurus page 1, 6/27/2008

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_76...tm.htm#7666424

I did read “of course, probably a Veco 0.35/45”, and did not know the K & B.
So on the moment before I did tell, in the Crate of Africa on the right side a K & B is visible, I did have to check!
I did find this post!, from Jim Messer, “Help Identifying Old Bipe” - 8/30/2003 1:20 AM


When I did see this, it was the prove all the facts told by pimmnz I probably could give a qualification number “0” in the list of my facts. And indeed nearly all his input did follow this way, reason: disturbing my thread!
So when I do read these:

Then again my answer is: All my facts are double checked but I do not tell them anymore to protect them!
Most Eyewitness accounts I also do not believe because they were never proved after all these months of working, NOT REAL, and after the first presentation were changed more times! Also of these changes I do know the reasons and facts.

Cees

Gents,

A short post how I think about “eyewitness accounts”.

“Eyewitness accounts!”

While one American is trying to claim being the crew chief on Ed Kazmirski’s #1 Taurus at the ’63 Internats at Genk, the other is trying do us believe he knows somebody who did design the Taurus together with the famous designer himself some time before.

Have some interest in this thread: LOOK WHAT CAME IN THE MAIL TODAY-TAURUS HISTORY!!!
About that “crew chief”, a thread of airbusdrvr with some other members of this thread.

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_83...tm.htm#8365086

Why I didn’t add any post? See my fact! Picture 1

“Eyewitness accounts”, I only believe when they can be proved and fit.
They normally do in my “Taurus Construction and Flying Schedule”, because all the real facts fit together in one real history.

The most “Eyewitness accounts” I found are based on personal profit. Only a few facts I found in them I can use. Fake I recognize because I do know enough about aero modeling.

I did tell in the past, I will react my way, also when my name is (again) mentioned as in the thread of airbusdrvr by dhal22 on 1/15/2009 in post 3 of that thread.

That also means whatever has evidence in whatever kind of thread on any moment, it has nothing to do with me and my thread:”Redesign and reconstruction of the Oldest Taurus on Earth”.
I make my own judgments on the moments I have time to do this, just as Darwin probably did in the past.
More to come!

Cees

Eyewitness accounts are enough to send you to Death Row, Cees. That's pretty strong evidence you would like to ignore or dispose of.

Andy

Andy,
I live in the Netherlands but I think I do know a movie about that.
It’s called “code red” in “A few good men” with Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson.
But I see your posts are all "off topic".
Better you do not post in my thread anymore!
This was the last time I did give you an answer.

Cees

Thanks for answering, but I would still have preferred an answer instead of a riddle for my previous questions, which in my opinion are still left unanswered.

I'll stop posting here, but if I see more of your off-topic posts in the other thread, I'll probably start replying here again as well.

Andy

Gents,

There is some time passed after I did start my subproject about the brakes.
I want to bring two important pictures under attention. The first one we did see before.
On this picture I do show the fuselage of my own Oldest Taurus on Earth to compare with the picture from which I did copy the plane.
On this picture we see also the Top Flite Taurus main brakes on the right side wing set in the crate.
To show the details I also did make picture 2 in the with the 4 wheels.
If somebody has pictures for me of 1961 I would like to see them!
Cees

Gents,

We have non flyable weather coming days so to read something.

I often did write this thread is only to reconstruct the history of the Taurus.
It is only about the Taurus for the modelers all over the world and aero modeling members on RCU might help me.

It is sad to realize there are only reactions of enthusiastic readers but I did not get any results for my questions on RCU, from people that live in the USA.
Examples? Dihedral on the plans of Frank Myers, pictures, no answers!

Let it be clear, outside RCU, backstage, I do get all the information I need. It only cost me more time.

It looks like my thread is most unusual, but I am already busy to show other examples it isn’t.
My tread is about a first example of that well known plane, while most aero modelers are interested in the period after that!! Think about the BA!!!
The details of the first planes, BA's are forgotten I think.

Sometimes the examples of how this all happened show-up themselves I did tell!!
I did write two message after each other in a thread about airplane propulsion, d.d. 7/3/2009. (10 days ago)
I did shorten the messages and left the most important parts, The arrows do show the positions of the unimportant text fragments:

Content :
>>>
It is clear to me you USA members, for a long time, are throwing away your own history and know-how of glow engines (VECO, K & B) and planes (Taurus)
>>>
>>>
BTW, you USA members, you did fly to the moon so I have a question.
>>>

Now it was 9 days later, yesterday evening and I did see on the Dutch television and read later on Internet:

Houston, we have a problem: original moon walk footage erased
• High-res images of lunar walk probably taped over
• Loss of tapes went unnoticed for 35 years


Whatever anybody writes in my thread, never forget my only reason is to reconstruct the original history of the Taurus.
That is also the goal of research and explanations of technical aspects. For example I do show the brakes.
It has nothing to do with any claim. If I want to claim I have my own inventions for that.


BTW Moonwalk,

The only tape that probably is left is from a camera that had been pointed at a black-and-white monitor at NASA.
Is this really news? No, August 2006 it already was known they have to "reconstruct" that last tape.

On RCU you can see a video from me, also with the camera pointed on the monitor.
http://www.rcuvideos.com/video/TeletubeTest-wmv
Public, only instructors and staff while I show the way it was possible to fly within the rules of that club!!

Technical, vario and flightlevel you can see.
Lowest LED "on", left side is flight level lower than the top of the trees!

Cees

Gents.

Engines and classic pattern flying!

Bleed air carburator, fuel tank, idle, prototaxi, wheelbrakes?

In an earlier post I did explaine the Taurus is better to use for a "spot" landing, the straight tailcone simple does work better as an air brake than the high angled tail cone of the old tail dragger, for example Orion. Paul does have the experience also,he did say, the Orion is more a "floater", and he is right.

I do like the Old program in which "proto taxy" was part of the program, and after the landing you have to taxi to the "hangar" and stop the plane.

Ed and the other pilots did a lot of research on this part of the pattern flight and Top Flite did sell the brakes Ed did design for this.

What I did see in the threads, it was all forgotten and even now the helper puts the airplane on the strip before the pattern flight starts! Is this real? I do not think so and even now we can read back "no place" in the national team in the past sometimes did depend on the points that were lost with a bad spot landing.

Landing was as important as flying and brakes as important as the idle adjustment of the engine.
Now I read, "you never can have too much power" and "unlimited vertical".
I tell you, too much "idle" power was also too less brake power and that's the problem on concrete or asphalt and no wind.
Then unlimited vertical also can be unlimited horizontal on ground level!

My question is, does someone else also use brakes on there plane? On the classic pattern plane that originally did have brakes in the past?
When I was a judge and see the plane without brakes? No "brake points".
Idle engine and cannot stop the plane? "No brake" points!
Idle and stop the plane (in any winddirection): "Full house" points for the brake champion.

Radio control: stop is as important as go, in any wind direction on any level, also groundlevel!
Look at the real airplanes they all have brakes and Ed did make a study them, trying to make the best.

Let me know your experience.

Cees

Gents a post a few minuts later than my last post!

In :SPA aircraft engines page 1.
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_8941990/tm.htm


That's why I like "proto taxi", I can beat the Atlas with that even with the Oldest Taurus on Earth and the nosewheel brake.
Do not forget, classic pattern flying isn't flying to the moon!
(I even have the HIGH RES Image of the Oldest Taurus on Earth!.)

Cees