Cees, Taurus slows down quicker than Orion or Perigee because of the fat wing, not anything to do with 'tailcones'. Slimmer wing, less drag, but you know that. A trike Orion lands with exactly the same attitude as a tailwheel Orion, the only difference being when it slows a bit and the nose drops, not the tail. Given the poor throttles and higher idle RPM's of the older engines, it's little wonder that speed control was important 'back in the day'. There is much more, but then you just know your theories are right. But we all enjoy our hobby anyway, and practising landings with Orion so there is no bounce is lots of fun, no matter what the wind.
Evan, WB #12.

Hello Evan,

Picture 1 19 % wing of the Orion.

Never did tell something else, but!
I can you tell this: Evan, even when you write me “slows a little and the nose drops, not the tail”. I think: "Yes Evan but do not forget, after touchdown of the tricycle you still go on with Bingo 7, 8 and 9 . And when you do not know that, your (air-break-drag) chute is FOD for your buddy."
I was F5 Freedomfighter engineer in the past. Flight stops when your plane is back on the “flight Line” again. (Proto Taxi)
Wheelbrakes Evan, I can spend 5 posts only on that, nothing to do with flying but winning!! But a big differce when used on tailwheel planes or "nosewheelers"
(Nosewheelers would behave like skeelers without brakes on the wheele(r)s, LOL)

Constant speed was important, of course, but you always will be wondered about a lot things in live because you did stop learning too early.
You never did read any article about Ed, that is clear to me.
With speed control (but that isn’t constant speed) you can reach a more constant speed than used in the past and these days, also by using thick wings.

Yes Evan and that “much more ” is I am telling you and which you want us believe you all already know.
When I finish my story in the future there is no single reason I do not know and I want You do not know, why Ed did built his Oldest Taurus on Earth. My PM from the Orion pilot, I did receive about the “floating” Orion, I did tell you all so we can learn all these reasons. One of my most important factors of reconstruction is, not designing and reconstructing the Oldest Taurus on Earth, because that’s peanuts, but to let you all believe this story it true!

When I read your posts it is like, you will ignore the picture of the crate and all the development Ed did do in the past for every contest flyer.



So, not nice to read gents, some educational information compensation (EIC)

Look at the second picture, a lots of fun!!! 30 years ago.
To win the game your plane and flights has to be better under every condition:

1 wind
2 temperature
3 warm hands, personal physical conditions
4 electronics vario
5 design speed, lift, all kinds of drag
6 proportions think about the Sim La
7 construction how to keep all the pieces together and build light!!!!!

Why 7 construction?
This is the same glider last year I did show you in post 27 page 2 , the picture I show you now is 30 years old! The weight is nearly the same as my Orion!
BTW, with this scale glider,ASK 18, I never did win any contest of course, only to show you the way I did build gliders and I think know some facts of the tail cone.

Ed?
Drag? Weight? Weathervaning? See picture 3 Ed
Do not forget, even from the Orion the vin and stab are well designed for this, and is weather vaning depending of the friction of the tailwheel to withstand sideforces when turn with crosswind! Not only with the Taurus. Also trying to redesign the Taurus for Knife edge is destroing the anti weathervane capability during Proto Taxi.

There are already more reasons I can show you that Ed could have used the Oldest Taurus on Earth on moments you never expect. Because why should you use the TF/ MAN Taurus when you have a better one? Think about that, because I have done it already, long ago!

Ed did know it all, from his own biography, from Internet:

Ed’s very first model came not from a kit, but instead was something he put together on his own
without any help. The rubber band-powered model was made of 1/16-square balsa and covered
with silk, very fragile and very light. Ed enjoyed flying that plane immensely. His thrill with
model design would later pay off through the kitting of three RC models.


I did use rice paper, not silk, and did start with gliders! No money for kit.
Cees

Gents,

A short extra post to show you how it is possible to streamlining the nose and allows the prop to work efficiently, see picture 1 from Ed for a second presentation.

THE DIFFUSOR

In this “baffle” period I am diffuser minded, all the modern Jets do have a diffuser, I want a diffuser.

The diffuser reduces the airspeed and enlarges the pressure in the engine room to let the air do its job see picture 2. (Daniel Bernoulli, Dutchman! See picture 3)

When doing is this way the amount of air does not have to be much so the air ducts are small but “well shaped”.
Hanna did give me possibility to make pictures during one of the engine inspections on the “flight line”. picture 4

So, my Orion does have a diffuser in front of the furnace where it’s all happening just like any jet.

The furnace, the old ENYA 60 4C, does have his valve timing and pushrods on the backside, that’s the reason I like this engine. It is a four stroke with the possibility and room for a diffuser in front of the cylinder so the total drag is lower than a 2 stroke , I THINK.

The belly landing protection (headrest!) defends the rocker hatch and whole engine mounting during belly landings because that’s the danger of the inverted engine with retracts. This protection also reduces turbulence, so drag, behind the rocker hatch and let the cooling air flow out of the engine room without any extra resistance.

So, because of the flexible motor mount the Enya 60 4C can rest its old tired head against the headrest during “Bad times” and wait for better. Picture 5

Picture 6 shows us the first situation before this modification. With every “deadstick” not only the pilot would “lost his head” (self reliance/confidence?) also his engine would do so. And of course DRAG because of not listening to Daniel the Dutchman.

Also this has all to do again with weather vane so, not only the shape of the fin and rudder (!!!), also every vertical side surface and bad shape of the nose see again picture 6.

But, it again has also to do with the tail cone! Why?
"Tail cone" a cone-shaped component at the rear of a jet (engine) or Oldest Taurus on Earth.
The tail cone reduces the speed of the airflow( and enlarges the pressure) around the fuselage to come together behind the tail feathers without turbulence, so less drag.

The tail cone is a diffuser not more and not less, so turbulence is drag when the tail cone is not used the way it is designed. (Orion inverted!!!)

Reading the articles of Ed and thinking about this kind of modifications with my Orion already a few years back and far before this thread is started , I think it is important to look also this way to every detail of the Taurusses, because Ed also did do this in the past, even mounting the engine upside down!!
Why?

When you know why and how to mount a restrictor in the carburetor of the VECO 45 just Ed did or when we look to the planes Ed did fly with, see picture 7 and 8, I can tell you this, “Ed did know it all!”

Cees

Cees,

You are assuming a lot about Evan when you say - "Constant speed was important, of course, but you always will be wondered about a lot things in live because you did stop learning too early.
You never did read any article about Ed, that is clear to me. "

As near as I can tell Evan has been accurate about everything he has said in his responses to this thread. I say this having a background as a practicing aero engineer for 43 years at McDonnell Douglas and in retirement, and as a modeler for over 58 years. I'll attach a photo of me as a young modeler. I practically memorized everything that Ed wrote in the magazines as they were my only way of getting any information about models when I was young.

Even then I wondered why Ed used a semi-symmetrical airfoil for a pattern airplane when the CL folks were using a fully symmetrical airfoil. Now I realize the answer was he needed a stable flying platform - one that could fly without a lot of toggle motion on the transmitter.

Yes everyone thought the Taurus was a hot airplane at the time - but it isn't by today's standards. It flies OK but has things that prevent it from being a perfect pattern airplane - it's evolution at work.

One of the things that happens with really good pattern fliers is that they never want to fly some one else's designs. So we find a host of airplanes with different fuselage shapes, wings, vertical tails, etc., all in the attempt to look different. We also find that most of those airplanes fly good but don't win contests. As Ed said 60% was pilot. He could have taken Tom's airplane or any number of airplanes and have flown just as well - but it wouldn't have been his design. Flying his own design was very important to him. We all know that feeling.

Cees, whether or not the Orion (or any other airplane) on bounces or doesn't bounce on grass verses a hard surface, regardless of speed, is simply the effect of the grass and ground absorbing the bounce. Nothing more. It helps if the pilot is good also.

Ben

The photo is of me when I was 8. I had already been building a year or so. Imagine me with a double edge razor blade and pointy pins.

Ben hello,

Are you wondered about the semi-symmetrical wings, I not!!! Wingloading, we did talk before in the Ed kazmirski's Taurus. The equipment was very heavy, especially when you did not have relai-less.

Ben, Explain the tank of the Taurus II to Duane when you think to know about control liners.
I was control liner and the question is no problem for me, but when I explain, they will not believe me.
Ed Kazmirski's Taurus; post 818 page 33.


Think about fuel pressure controller for acrobat flyiing to try to find an answer for Duane.


Or, Ben, should it have something to do with torsional spring suspension in the mainlegs of the landing gear and the tailwheel. Piano Wire taurus Flyer?

As many times before, I THINK SO!!


Cees

I'd like to offer a few of my observations from that time period.
I'm only an average builder and flyer, but I did compete back then.

Orion vs Taurus.
There are only two ways to land a conventional geared airplane.
Fly it on for a wheel landing or full stall for a three point landing.



Wheel landings had a drawback in that on a touch and go you had to ride it out till the tail wheel dropped for the plane to no longer be flying.
As per a few judges.

Three point, meant you had to wait it out until the plane was fully stalled. If you were a little too high, you bounced.
If you let it touch before stalling, you bounced.

As mentioned it was not uncommon to carry a little higher rpms with the old engines due to inconsistent idling.
Sometimes with the old reed set ups we had to remove the engine side throttle plate.
The metal to metal noise would cause unwanted reed action with certain props at certain rpms.
So again higher rpms.


Slipping was not an option if you didn't have the new proportional radios.
Rudder and aileron toggle switches were both on the same side of the box.
Some of the radios were non simultaneous, only one control input at a time.

I know it wasn't right, but a few people could get away with small mistakes on landing with a plane with a nose wheel.
I saw some people get high marks for skimming onto the ground, something you couldn't get away with the tail wheel equipped planes.

Also the brakes on the nose wheel equipped planes were activated by down elevator.
You could get away with early activation with the Taurus.
My Orion had a drag wire across the tail wheel, couldn't get any help till the tail was on the ground.

The thick wing helped to slow the Taurus a lot for landing, even with a high idling engine, the plane came down reasonably and stopped fast. That was easier than the Orion.

I believed the Taurus was a good evolution from the Orion.
If you look at all the other changes Ed made, and called each variation by a new name, each plane being an evolutionary new design, maybe there would be a little less controversy now.

My opinion, and only an opinion, is that back then R/C planes were a bit heavier than a similarly powered control line plane. To lift the extra weight many designers still used the semi symmetrical wing section.
Just a very short time later fully symmetrical airfoils were the in setup along with zero incidence stabs and wings.

Evolution just went on.



Paul



Since everyone is showing early pictures, here's mine.
The first is one my first self built planes.
The second was me with one of my dad's ex planes.
I was very lucky to get an early start.

Paul,

Very, very thanks for your post.
You really show us the way you did fly the Orion and Taurus in the past, with details we never have known.

I will read your explanation more times, because I think, not only I, but many more of us want to know how flying with reeds really happen.
I did switch over to proportional too fast. The extra about the wingloading in the post for Ben, I added on the same moment You did post your post.
Thanks

The nicest part of your post!!! "The metal to metal noise would cause unwanted reed action with certain props at certain rpms.
So again higher rpms." Could you ever believed that!!!!!!!!!WOW



BTW, I still have my first radio controlled glider and I will make some pictures of it these days to show you!

Cees

Ben,


Yes Ben, but not only for that but more because of the high wingloading. When it became important to fly inverted and he could't not use the taildragger Orion for that anymore also because of the frise ailerons, it was the moment to design the Oldest Taurus on Earth. Because only the Taurus uses his tailcone to generate drag and lost altitude to hit the circle and get points to win during final approach. The Orion only uses his tail to be a taildragger.

Simple is that!

Cees

Ed's Taurus had a high wing loading Cees? His turned out under 6lb. Over a near 6 foot wing, that's more akin to glider loadings. As Ed said, the big thing about Taurus was the thick wing, which gave him good speed control, a more constant speed regardless of direction, and therefore more predictable control response. The drawback was the unpredictable stall, which is not good for contest aerobatics, and why he needed extra 'up' for his spin. Mine needs the same, as even with the advantages of modern radio, the spin is still a bit a luck maneuver. Tailcones notwithstanding, the fat wing has the greatest effect on the drag of this airplane, as the wing does on any airplane.
Evan, WB #12.

Evan,


All about is differences between Evan, the Orion had also a 19 % thick and same tapered wing but smaller.(square of the ratio of the wingspans = ratio of the wing surfaces!)
The Orion did try to pull in the air the same radio and he could used for that beiing a taildragger.
The Orion is the only REAL taildragger ever won the internationals I THINK.

That's also the reason I use also the Orion (a little bigger so I compare it direct with the Taurus, same span).
Research of engines, pressure controllers for fuel and tank, torsion suspensions on the landing gear (about 7 modifications I can show you), controllability during taxiing (adjustable deflection of the tailwheel), suspesion with damping!! of the tailwheel (do you know the Orion has a friction device on its tailwheel?? Know the details Evan, all the details!!!), frise ailerons, tanklevelmeasurement, central pneumatic controlled maingears spring and gravity return, diffusor for cooling, there will never be an end. The Orion, the super super Cargo Lifter even I did not change any aerodynamical detail, only reduced the drag and turbulence. Super design by Ed Kazmisrki!!!
To compare with the DC3 and Ju 52.
I
Evan, you are right, the intermediate pilot need a bit a luck, even with a Top Flite or MAN Taurus, because it isn't a Hot Airplane anymore with the modern radio.
Ed was the best of 17 Taurus pilots even with reeds in 1962.
But I am not reconstructing thát plane.
65 % Pilot 35 % plane.

Cees

Ben, Explain the tank of the Taurus II to Duane when you think to know about control liners.
I was control liner and the question is no problem for me, but when I explain, they will not believe me.
Ed Kazmirski's Taurus; post 818 page 33.

Think about fuel pressure controller for acrobat flyiing to try to find an answer for Duane.

Cees
[/quote]

Cees...I think you may misunderstand me after all the discussions we've had on the other thread. I take each statement and evaluate what is said...each statement stands on its own, whether it is made by you or someone else. I wish you would have responded yourself, I'd listen.

From the very beginning of the other Taurus thread, all we have tried to do is look for the truth from among all the clues. Yes there are times when we don't all look at the facts the same way, but there has also been a lot of agreement, and I've learned a lot. I don't blindly accept what ANYONE says, and you certainly don't accept much of what is said by others either.

You certainly have a "lively" little thread going here.
Duane

Duane,

When I am neutral and positive and do not want to prove anything I can warn you,
Be carefull with you Taurus II because I think the centre section (of the fuselage) of your plane can be from the oldest taurus on Earth.

When that is not thrue, then Ed did use the design of my Taurus, of the crate to design yours, but!!!

There are too many details the first point is true.

Again with the tank, Ed did all to get the optimum of fuel to air ratio and less influences of G- forces, so did look to the controlliners, just I do,
But I use a fuel pressure controller and tank pressure controller, that's better for my Enya 60 4C and I can make them.
BTW same story about air-speed. On the point Ed did stop by not having the controllers I continue.

About the tank, its has a design background probably of a control liner tank, only Ed did use it 90 degrees turned.
He could not use pressurized tanks, they did not have mufflers and he did want to fly inverted and loopings.
The air input is in the centre of the tank that's why the pressure above the fuel is - p = h x y ,
controlliners use this (Bernoulli) so you get no extra pressure of the g-forces during control line flying see picture 2.
For RC this solution is not optimal but is is the best they could get I think. And filling the tank, that's the trick!
But yes, a ST 56 with a tank of 180 cc, you know the tricks!

See picture 1. I already did make it yesterday for you to show and with the K & B, no Veco no ST.

Cees

Orion wing section is 15% Cees, the 19% section was a one off experiment, that didn't work. Read Ed's words again. I realise English is not your first language, and things get lost in the translation. Check you Orion drawings if you don't believe me. There is a world of difference between a 15% wing and a 19% wing, as you fly both you should know that...
Evan, WB #12.

Cees the first drawing of the RC tank should have the venting air line inside of the tank attached to a piece of bent metal tubing. This positions the end of the vent tubing right next to the top of the tank and prevents the siphoning of the fuel when the tank is full. Ed's tank with the red band seems to be a two tubing tank - one to the motor and one for venting. As you can see the venting line does have the bend to the top of the inside of the tank. It looks as if the metal tubing outside of the tank broke off. The flow to the motor, as your drawing shows, is dependent on fuel position relative to the needle valve.

If the tank is level it doesn't matter where the vent is - the vent just bubbles until you have a constant pressure inside the tank. If you are maneuvering the internal pressure varies a lot but apparently the motors can handle it fine - most modelers just flop the vent over the side or leave it stuck up in the air.. You can put the vent forward but the pressure varies a bit too much.

Making the venturi smaller certainly eliminates some of the sensitivity of this operation. Certainly Ed seemed to go for the least complicated solution for problems. He probably fueled through the line to the motor if it is a two line tank.

I had a bad inner ear problem so never got into control line but I remember reading about a "chicken hopper" fuel tank design one time.

Ben

Evan,

I did ask in the past maybe the word TAIDRAGGER could be the key.
I did not get an answer on that question so I did try myself.

Want you read the story and tell me what you find of it?

Let me tell you, I like it, I think it is true.


See below.

The story again, but new formulation, maybe better to understand.
For a moment we do not talk about downwash and the stab.

So:

The tail (part of the fuselage behind the TE of the wings) of an airplane is so designed that it has less drag on the moment you found that important.
I think we could look to the tail of an airplane that is straight horizontal in the flight direction in the most optimum position, when the designer want the most important job of the airplane.

The angle of the tail is very important for the designer.

When the designer does found it important to generate high lift forces of the wing (most important task), then he calculate with a high angle of attack (AOA).
That high angle of attack we can see when we look to the angle the wing is mounted in the fuselage, but also the angle of the backside of the fuselage.(the tail, but I call this the sometimes tail cone).

The tail of a high loadable airplane is so calculated that it is horizontal straight in flight direction on moment of take off and climb and so highest AOA.(after tail down to lift off)

Normally we see these kind of airplanes with tail wheel undercarriage and call them because of the drag of the tail during normal flight “TAILDRAGGERS”

The design Ed did make, the Orion, is designed to carry high loads into the air.

So we see also the Orion wing is mounted on a positive angle in the fuselage. The angle of the tail is so calculated that the tail is trimmed “tail high” during normal flight typical for the taildragger.

The Orion did had a straight, probably 19 % wing, the wing loading of this wing was 17 oz/sq ft. (picture 1)
Later the wing surface is reduced by tapering to enlarge the wing loading (picture 2)
At last the wing, we see in the kit of Top Flite, is 15 %

With a 19 % wing we can use the Orion with a wing loading of 32,5 oz/ sq ft and is still a very usable airplane, especially for research. The limit could be even 40 oz/sq ft!!! Try?
I think it will go, because for lift off with 40 oz/sq ft, I do need less than 11 per cent more speed than normal and with that angled tail cone and low drag and special less flexible tires, it will be no problem I think.
Because of the retracted gear and fairings, I think the speed also, with 40 oz/sq ft, will be higher then the standard Orion even if it has a 15 % wing and if it isn't I can remove the tailwheel and place a low drag tailskid, I will win if I want (I THINK but at least try, without any debate before!)

BTW

Just as with the Taurusses in, used in Belgium and USA, we do not know what the designer specifications where from that Orion Ed did use in switserland, but it is in one of the (USA?) museums, so if we want, we can know.

For reconstructing of the Oldest Taurus on Earth the Orion is not important because also the very first Taurus is a typical “Nose wheel airplane” and no taildragger.

To be (on topic) or not to be (on topic) that's the question.

Cees

Hello Ben,

I only did say, It could be the way Ed did use the tank to get a constant ratio of air / fuel, independent of level and when the amount of fuel is more than 50 %.
It will not work perfect but maybe better than much systems when we really know the details of Ed.

I want to warn Kingaltair because when you do not know these details you are throwing away HIGH IMPORTANT INFO, without knowing!!!

This is Daniel Bernoulli! (dutchman) but also Blaise Pascal, I am an instrumentation and controll engineer.
If you mount a tube to the top it does not work the way I mean, (you can shake it LOL)
After siphoning a few drops you have the right under(sucking?) pressure of h x specific mass, equal to the heigth of fuel in the tank, so compensation. So the Hydrostatic pressure on the carblevel in the tank is the same as the baromatric pressure of the air around the carb!!
I measure the pressure of the air at the inlet of the carburator because I use a diffuser for cooling so the overpressure in the engineroom I have to count with.


BTW, I did know you would not know this and not believe me, so that's the reason I already did make the picture for Kingaltair.
My warning was, to now how to fill the tank!!!!!!!!!

Of course I am not sure, it was not my intension to win, but help, see the start of my post.
Only you must know Bernoulli and or Blaise Pascal to know these details. I think Ed did know this also so I count with every trick he could have used to win.
The ratio is primary, there are lots of other provits when it works, less consumption less change of CG etc (even less metal, it's a wonder)
This is the reason I do use two pressure controllers, one for the fuel, one for the tank.
No more and no less, or you do want believe it or not.


Cees

Cees,

"I want to warn Kingaltair because when you do not know these details you are throwing away HIGH IMPORTANT INFO, without knowing!!! "

Well I don't know that these are all that important of a detail. I remember the standard clunk tank having been used in any number of planes of the time including my contest rudder only "Charger" airplane. I doubt that too many fliers over-thought it to any extent. They just saw it being used successfully and copied it.

"My warning was, to now how to fill the tank!!!!!!!!! "

"Warning" - I again have to wonder about the conversion to English from the Dutch Engineer. Anyway with the three tube clunk tank you could fill it from the overflow vent. If you kept things clean this worked fine for a long time before clogging up the needle valve with junk. You had to be careful and not flood the engine.

With a two tube clunk you always filled from the engine feed line. This also worked OK for an equally long time with the same comments of clogging the needle valve applying. No problem with flooding.

Finally somewhere along the time line fuel line filters were developed stopping the clogging of the needle valve. However I still used the three tube clunk today. Nothing fancy and it still works.

But all of these things were universally used by everyone - nothing specific to the Taurus that I remember. Otherwise other folks would have copied it and mentioned it - alot.

I just looked over the video from the international contest in the wind storm. It is a wonder anyone won! I feel sorry for Jerry Nelson flying that big winged floaty machine he had. It is an indication of how badly everyone was flying that an airplane won that used a constant elevator deflection to do loops.

Happy new year all

Ben

How's the build and flying schedule on the Taurus going??

Ben,

In the building threads normally the members write about the problems and experiences other people have with planes and/or an article they can buy. Look to hinges. All the members look to that little bad link in the chain, modern hinge and CA glue. We help each other the best we can.

Redesign and reconstructing the Wester Taurus isn’t looking to a chain and trying to win a debate about what you think it is the weakest link!
I did tell, the Redesign and reconstruction of the Oldest Taurus on Earth is a little one man show.

I show every step in my process to make the result believable.

A SHOW I bring because people did tell me they like it to see the redesign and construction.

Redesign the Oldest Taurus on Earth is nearly like Ed did in the past. Making a hoisting rope for lifting the heaviest load and make that rope as strong as possible by study every individual shroud/string/twine (whatever you use to make a rope).
There are moments members help me by sending a PM with important info to add and use, that is my profit by bringing the SHOW, making my rope stronger than I can make it myself..

Winning a contest, just the way Ed did is simple having the strongest rope.

Carry every heavy rule of the contest rules to the highest level in the shortest time without destroying one single string in your rope.
The most important but also Oldest Taurus rope was also the Oldest Taurus on Earth, on the right side in the crate of Africa, I think, and probably stronger than the TOP FLITE /MAN/ RCM & E/ Standard Taurus.

I was afraid it disappeared and would be forgotten by everybody so I try to reconstruct the plane with every detail.

I show you a picture and hope you understand. The picture from the important rule maybe was for the tank lay-out, the tank with two holes.
If there are details in the future you do not understand or know, think about this post, it could be the reason we all know Ed Kazmirski in Europe.

Cees

Inverted Figure Eight over the transmitter with the equipment of that day - scares me to death and our officials would have a fit. I am also amazed that Ed kept his airplanes intact over those years. He must have been exacting in inspecting and maintaining his equipment.

Anyway - what is the status of your reconstruction? How close to flying? Only that way will you know for sure. Am I correct in assuming that you have access to a modern version of the Taurus to compare it to (without all the electronic help)? If you have flown that type for a long time you will be able to evaluate the difference.

Have you set out a Flight Test Plan? I guess you would have to compare inside and outside loops with full control inputs as Ed did. You could select points on the proportional transmitter elevator trim lever to correspond to the different trim positions that Ed selected during a contest flight. Even better would be to put a mix in that moved the elevator trim to work on a switch. You would use one trim on takeoff and another when he changed trim upon going inverted. He seemed to have used only the two trim points I think. It would be possible to use a modern proportional system to duplicate the old reed system by "bliping" a shortened control stick. You could always use it to fly true proportional if needed.

You could never use the rudder at the same time as the ailerons.

Trying to duplicate the radio system action as best as you could would show what Ed was looking at when he evaluated the two airplanes.

Sound reasonable?

Ben

Ben,
Reading your post I have the possibility to explain some facts first and try to synchronize later.
My project (One MAN Show), does have some important side views, more important than flying the plane.
I could have made a non flyable Taurus also, only to show I can duplicate the plane by laser beaming.
The process of redesign and reconstruction has to be believed because not believing makes the whole plane useless, I better could have made a plane for myself then.
I did use a more than 3 Mb black and white picture probably made by Ed himself I sunny conditions so sharp every detail, (think about the diaphragm he did use)
I did use a industrial high resolution plotter to make the print-outs for making the masks for the laser beaming as I did show in the beginning. I use all my know how to be as accurate as possible.
Building also is no problem for me I did show you by using additional information..

Next but also most important fact is the story.
The evolution of the Taurus in the Crate of Africa to the Taurus II of Kingaltair does have on this moment.
For me it is clear that there is a 100 % relationship between these two Taurusses, but that is not so important, when speaking about the evolution. There could be two fuselages In the story also, same design, but we know Ed could change every part of a plane without leaving behind visible indications.
That is not strange to me. I can do it myself. Look to my Taurus it was blue in the beginning, and one time the fuselage was in two parts after a low pass inverted deadstick.
When I read your post 217: How is the “Built and flying schedule on the Taurus going”, I think you did read somewhere about my schedule.
Because the evolution is too complicated to understand and because nobody did want to operate with me I must do also the evolution story by myself.
Making the evolution story is more important than the plane but I did not show the schedule before.
I use my Taurus construction and flying schedule. (Construction! Not Reconstruction).
It is the time schedule of all the parts I know. All the fuselage steps in time and the wings, also from the Top Flite Taurus and the unfinished fuselage. But also proportional and reeds radio.
Every flyable combination in the past I explain for myself in the schedule to help my way of thinking and make the story believable for myself.


The schedule has a second goal, to show if it could be possible something Ed could have made in a certain period.
Example: When I finished the laser beaming I in the past I discovered and did show that the Taurus in the crate wasn’t as long as I expected. So again an evolution step to explain.
I am working on schedule rev C now because I probably discovered that evolution step yesterday and want to prove is for myself
When that ‘s possible, prove, then also the longer Wester Taurus really did exist in the past, see my first “study picture” In the beginning of the thread,

Flying,
Not interesting in this period of building is flying.
Only I try to make every necessary detail that I need during test flying so I do not have to change much then (see servo mounting, pushrods, speed measurement, motor side thrust adjustment).
Making all these kind of details is very time consuming and is completely different from a normal built thread. I simply might not use modern materials because Ed did built the plane without them.
So Ben you are informed I wait for your response and to think about what to do next.
Remember, believing the storing is most important of this whole process, I did never get an indication of anybody. It seems to me like nobody believes the Crate Taurus even ever exists while I really see it on the picture. It was on the World, The Oldest Taurus
My project is like jumping out of an airplane not really knowing I have a parachute on my back, so I only can look for a very deep swimming pool!!,

More to follow, first thinking also about tomorrow. These days there is one year past Ed did pass away.

Cees

Nice Stinson, Ben.
Chris...

Gents,

Is my “two hole fuel tank principle ” believed or not?
I did not get response, only a personal message with important info.
So an post with a second description because it is important:

What could have happen when a World famous photographer did have his roots on a Triumph motorcycle.

When a combustion engine does not get his ideal mixture of fuel and air, than you get not all the power you want.
Two clicks more open of the needle valve is destroying energy, during horizontal flight!!!!! (see picture 1)

The too much amount of fuel has to be evaporate, heating up, and so consumes your extra thermal power during the transport through your little engine. You lose power by generating all kinds of drag.
It also uses the room in the little combustion chamber without doing anything else than let you lose the contest game.
Most important Dutch fact: money

To get the right ratio the fuel pressure is very, very, very important! Very important! Yes very!
To fly inverted the ratio is again double more extra important because of the extra drag of the plane with his asymmetrical wings and position of the fuselage.

Did Ed know that, Let us take a look!

Ed was a mechanical engineer or machinist. These were his roots of all he know about combustion engines and that could be a lot.
One important “extra” to win with his Triumph motorcycle for example was , a "roots" compressor to get a great amount of combustion air through the carburetor, with all the necessary modifications on the carb of course.

And then later? With the combustions engines on his airplanes, no problems with the fuel/air ratio, also not inverted?

I did not think so if you make the fuel tank the best you know in that period.

The picture2, the roots compressor, when you forget the modifications on the carb the fuel is blow out the float chamber and of course Ed did know that.

The picture 3 and 4 again in better pictures the two hole fuel tank, right European and wrong the USA type.

Who did explain Ed the European fuel tank when he was in Europe in 1960?!!!!!LOL

Picture 5 compressors are sometimes bigger, the instrumentation the same, Daniel Bernoulli, not the Roots (displacement) but with diffusers inside, a lot of them.
Picture 6 My “ROOTS” does not have a belt drive but a static, the carburetor problems can be the same

Ed did know it all, so I THINK he did use the best fuel tank system in his contest Taurus. Which I can only guess.
I will use the European fuel tank principle again in the Wester Taurus even with the muffler, I will make the strongest rope a second time.


For a while the first picture again: THE weakest string of the King? Sometimes you can see it from a big distance, we do so and Ed did also, he was often warned before the contest started.
Do not tell me it does not matter because we know Ed in Europe and not you.

Next time about the K & B 45 engine and the picture of the King Pin, one more time, before we continue with the building.
Because what to do with a European fuel tank and a bad engine? We all want to know it all.
Propulsion in the rope, of winning the contest, are two strings twined together, because they have to do the propulsion going better.


Cees

Gents,

There is send me a PM of an eyewitness Bob, who could remember the K & B of Ed, see picture 1
He did ask me what could be the reason and I repeat:

“The one question I had for you referred to the engines Mr. Kazmirski used in his planes. As you know Kaz was a machinist and I promise you even at twelve I recognized that the K&B 45 ran stronger than most. ”

I am not a motor reviewer and I do not have the equipment for that but.
Why not compare and ask questions to ourselves.
Ray (RFJ) again did give me the info some time ago.

I compare the K & B 45 (picture 2) and the VECO 45 RC (picture 3) with my own eyes. The engines we talk about with the Taurus.
Picture 4 for who is interested: The ST56 RC, (Ray, can you show us the specs of the ST like I show from the others in this post?)

1 Power in every position, stability of ratio fuel /air of the mixture

Important is the distance between the backside of the crankcase and the spraybar.
The smaller the distance the closer you can mount the engines spraybar near the fueltank.
The smaller the distance between the spray bar and the air input inside the tank (European model) the better we can adjust fuel to air ratio, the better the power, so no “two ckicks” more but maybe“one”.(Important Dutch Money Factor)

When adjusted for vertical optimal mixture the more power in horizontal flight pad (normal and inverted) because the less “over optimal ratio?” horizontal.
The winner is the K & B 45 with a distance of 1 3/4 ” (see picture 2)
The loser is the Veco 45 with a distance of 2 ” (see picture 3)

2 Overall power

To compare the generated power of the engines we can look to differences. That’s easy, nothing to measure.

When the piston is going upwards (Yes, vertical mounted engine, hè, hè !? We are speaking about the Taurus!) The crankcase have to be loaded with the new mixture, when the channel through the crankshaft is free. Timing of the engines is nearly the same but!!!!!!

The K & B is the winner again, read there are more reasons.

The airflow to the venturi of the carburetor has two angles in the route to the centre of the crankcase of 120 degrees, the VECO has two angles of 105 degrees. The resistance factor (ksi) of a bow or angle of 105 degrees is much more than 120 so the K & B is faster with refueling the mixture in the crankcase. The total distance from input carburetor to centre crankcase of the K & B (2 " between the yellow dots) is also shorter (VECO 2 9/16").
The main reason of the better breathing is the use of the bronze bushed main bearing in the K & B 45. This makes the more afterwards positioned carburetor and so also more forward angled mounting of the carburetor possible!!!

The K & B doesn’t have ball bearings so also not in the crankcase, the space between the balls is “dead” space that ruins the compression ratio of the crankcase in sucking and press the mixture to the cylinder. So the K & B also wins with breathing!!
The K & B nearly looks like an engine with an internal sucking roots compressor when you modify the crankshaft by filling the (dead room) spaces of the counterbalance of the crankshaft (Ed could have done this, because it is possible (dutch: volwang krukas!!!), Maybe Ed did give the channel through the crakshaft a better shape, see the blue lines in the crankcase/crankshaft.
The K & B 45 has a rotating disk behind the crankshaft with a counterbalance to reduce vibrations! The K & B is the winner in generate overall power and does not destroy your reeds radio.


Ed did want power, not weight, so simple to compare
Weight
K & B Torpedo 45 RC 9.1 oz (winner)
VECO 45 RC 11,8 oz


Ed did want power for the weight so simple to compare
Power/weight
K & B Torpedo 45 RC 1,07 b.h.p./lb (winner)
VECO 45 RC 0,847 bhp/lb


Specific output
K & B Torpedo 45 RC 82 b.h.p./litre = 1,37 b.h.p. / cu inch (winner)
VECO 45 RC 1,34 b.h.p. / cu inch

CONCLUSION
So gents what about that!

That silly old K & B Torpedo 45 RC, not even ball bearings, second choice cheap CL engine!!
No, the best fuel to power transformer for that moment and Ed knew of course.

Important is, built the tank as close to the engine as possible, because the fuel to air ratio will always be the best. Make the 2 tubes through the fire wall just Ed did.
Use the European fulltank with the air inlet as close as possible near the firewall. We like it in the centre but in the top of the tank you also might.
Best is centreline of the tank and spraybar identic and also the air inlet in the fueltank on this level near the front of the tank. (See last study picture)

Kingpin did bent the inlet “somewhere in the top" in the fuel tank we see. (I THINK, sorry!)

With my controller the engine “thinks” the tank is beside the carburetor , he doesn’t know better. (I enlarged the throat of the carb, the engine can drink the fuel no suck??)

I am busy with the next question, did Ed really built in a restrictor in the Veco 45 so we can read?? Why?
When you make the throat of the venture of the carburetor smaller, you generate more sucking pressure. The differences of the fuel level position during the fully aerobatic maneuvers is relative less then, when compare with the high sucking pressure and so the mixture is more optimal and power more constant and better.
But the K & B has a much better breathing?? Does he already have a more narrow venturi in the carburetor, and nearly the same poweroutput as the VECO 45 before his restriction is mounted by Ed.
Maybe Ed was dissapointed about the maneuvrability of the VECO 45 and did give away power for fuel ratio stability!.
But how to tell that to you "fans", read the press.

An important fact for making this post is the reason I more times did fight for “Not forget the K & B Torpedo 45” in the thread of Ed Kazmirski’s Taurus.
Maybe this engine was more important than the VECO and ST.
(My thread is now on the first page of the 60 pages on the hitscounter)

Added in the post one more reason the K & B is better:
The K & B is again better.
The carb is more backwards mounted on the crankshaft bearing. so the bore in the crankshaft of the K & B is shorter than the VECO.
This volume of the bore is "dead room" for the crankcase, so bad for the internal crankcase compression ratio, this is again a reason the K & B is a better breather.


Cees

Gents,

I can find posts in which we can see Ed did use the K & B 45, an example. There are more I know!
Thread: Ed Kazmirski's Taurus, Page : 23, Post :563

A post from RFJ Ray, in answer to UStik


This could be an interesting message because the K & B was the lightest engine Ed could use in that period.
In the vertical down flightpad the weight is speed generating force.
And which wing was this the carrier wing #3? Interesting to check.

Cees

Gents,

Of course I did want to know if a 33 % wing was there.
I think the person of the CL forum did see a 23 % thick wing, and that could be the carrierwing.
To show us how an airfoil of 33 % thick looks like I did contruct one, NACA 2433. (When you display the airfoil there is an accuracy of +/- 1 % on your screen).
I always check the print-out by measuring length and width and adjust the differences before use "FOR CONSTRUCTION" .
Length 100 % thick 33 %

What do you think? "33 %, Busted!"

Cees