I have the original plans for the Ed Kazmirski Taurus from
Model Airplane News 1963 along with the article. The plans show
2 1/2 degrees of down trust & 2 1/4 degrees of right thrust, isn't
this a little extreme with the modern equiqment that we have available
today? What would the effect be if the down & right thrust were built
to a least half of that shown on the plans (1 1/4 down & 1 1/4 right).

All comments are welcome?

Bill D.

Bill, downthrust is there to compensate for the small decalage. Even though both wing and stab are set to 0 degrees incidence angle, the zero-lift angle for the 2419 wing airfoil is about -0.6 degrees. If you set the wing to this incidence angle you should (or may) set downthrust to zero. (I checked that in a simulator.)

Right thrust is another cup of tea. Since it should make up for the effects of prop torque, which are quite noticeable with a 12x6 prop, you may leave it as is. There's virtually no drawback if nearly all maneuvers in the schedule are positive-g. But right thrust is a matter of taste.

My 2 Eurocent...

Bill,

“All comments are welcome?�

I do use fixed “glued in� bolts in the wooden engine bearers, see the picture.

I can change the down thrust with sims, layers of glass/epoxy between the wooden bearers and engine. You can see them on the picture, all red!
Adjustment of that depends on several facts as, inverted flight /normal flight, fuselage shape, weight etc.

Down thrust is for me the last adjustment after trimming the model, CG/incidence of the wing/weight, neutral position of elevator, balance of wings etc.
Most important for adjusting downthrust I think is normal and inverted flight.
You need an adjustment for that and I do use the down thrust as on the plans, need a little bit down in inverted flight. I prefer that.
Some people do pull also the elevator in normal flight but I think that does not change the needed downthrust.

Side thrust is another story.
There are three main facts that makes adjustment of side thrust necessary.
1 Difference in P factor in normal and inverted flight.
2 Difference of slipstream of the prop wash in normal and inverted flight
3 Torque of the engine
Because I do find inverted as important as normal flight I do use 1 ½ degrees side thrust and that's right for me (it was a choice by experience).

This is with a 61 engine, OS Max 61FX or MVVS 10 ccm (60) and 13 x 6 propeller.

My model is a little heavier than the standard Taurus (15 %) but that doesn’t change these values I think, I need a few porcents more speed for that.
If you want more explanation of these I can look for posts I already did make in my thread “Redesign and reconstruction of the Oldest Taurus on Earth� if you want.
Success with building the Taurus.

Cees

Really, the equipment we have don't change the force set up of the airplane, only the weight it has to carry and the power available 'on tap'. Stick with the original set up, same size engine and weight, and the thing will be just fine.
Evan.

That's too simple for me, I want to adjust the plane for pattern to win, this is Classic Pattern Flying.
For long times I do use my own methods for all my planes depending of the model and design.
But for who is interested, I recently did find this article of Jim Kirkland and that's clear in RCU language.

I think on nearly any continent we all use the same simular methods for trying to fly in the world championships!

You can find it on RCU Classic Pattern Flying: Classic Pattern Plane Image-base of casniffer, thanks, great job!
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_6909020/tm.htm
Redirect in post 1 to:
http://www.trentonrcflyers.com/pattern/pattern1.htm
Instructions, Articles and Plans
http://www.trentonrcflyers.com/patte...structions.htm
Bottom of the page, Kirkland trim article
http://www.trentonrcflyers.com/patte...im_article.pdf

(for side thrust fine adjustment, Jim did use top of the loops, so full thrust with relative low speed! On top of page two last colom.)

Cees

Don't know where it suddenly came from but @ 62 years
of age I find I have an overwhelming appetite for vintage
and classic pattern ships, the Orion, Taurus, Daddy Rabbit,
& King Altair in particular. Don't think I will ever enter them
in competition, just love the sleek lines and gracefulness that
they fly with, so I guess with great zest I'll start letting the
balsa chips fly so to speak and get these birds "flying off" the
building board.

Thanks for the comments, will be checking in and showing off the new
birds as they develope.

Bill D.

Bill;

You are obviously a man of good taste. I'm a little younger, but I am increasingly finding a great deal of interest in researching these fine pattern ships, and the interesting people behind them. "Ed Kazmirski's Taurus" is a tremendous thread if you have the fortitude to "plow through" everything to separate the "wheat from the chaff", (ech person has their own definition of "wheat and chaff"). The latest subject I'm interested in is the "Tom Brett's Designs" thread. If the designs mean somethjing to you personally, it is even more fun and interesting.

As my RCU "handle" implies, I am a big fan of the King Altair. It is a very majestic ship, and flys like a dream...kind of like an advanced Taurus, but very easy to fly. Jeff Petroski of Home and Hobby Solutions kits the plane in lazer form as well as the Kwik Fly and Taurus. He is planning to offer a "Taurus-2" as discussed at length in the Kazmirski Taurus thread.

The Daddy Rabbit 1 and 5 are both nice flying ships. I have a friend who has a completed brand new DR1 for sale. He is a good builder. I fly a DR 5 in SPA competition.

..........Don't think I will ever enter them in competition.....

Don't be too sure about that, and don't be intimidated by the word "competition". I'd highly recommend SPA competition which a great blend of competing and fun. I have always felt that precision aerobatics mades you a better pilot faster, and it gives you a REASON, a CHALLENGE, and a PURPOSE to fly. Each time you go up you can be working on something. Almost everyone starts in Novice, and where there is a desire to practice, you WILL get better over time and have a "blast" doing it. I've had SPA friends that I almost had to "hold a gun to their heads" to get them to compete, and NOW, their personal SPA experience, and the friends that are made have become a large part of their lives. SPA pilots are a great bunch of guys.

Give us a try if their is an event withing driving distance. We have several boys from Mississippi who drive to the Georgia and Alabama events, and there is a Discussion List you can belong to where you can share ideas, and read what others are saying. There are more SPA Chapters and events every year.

Duane

As my RCU "handle" implies, I am a big fan of the King Altair. It is a very majestic ship, and flys like a dream...king of like an advanced Taurus, but very easy to fly. Jeff Petroski of Home and Hobby Solutions kits the plane in lazer form as well as the Kwik Fly and Taurus. He is planning to offer a "Taurus-2" as discussed at length in the Kazmirski Taurus thread.

Just recieved my kit of the King Altair from Jeff last week, got to say he produces a very nice kit,
looks like a lot of care had been taken in materials selection, a "First Class Kit".

Great: I've owed 4 Kings, and have built and flown 3. I was the one who talked Jeff into kitting the plane, and I wrote the "cover sheet" in the kit. I have a few suggestions for construction that may help you if you're interested. Contact me any time.

Duane

I'll send you an e-mail thru RCU and maybe we can exchange phone numbers.

To All,

I to am an enthusiast for vintage pattern planes. I have already begun to build a "Taurus" from plans. I intend to finish it same scheme as the original. The build so far seems realtively easy. I have the article from 1963 Model airplane News but it does lack in much build information. The real question I had was about the down thrust and right off set. Not knowing any better I followed the plans for both settings. My original thought was to power it with an OS .50sx since it had a rather large thick wing. However, I fell for full nostalga and will install a Veco .45 just like the original. I bouhgt it from a RCU member. If you folks have any helpful suggestions for me please feel free to let me know.
I will say that the fuselage construction though simple, has some unique build methods that don't show themselves to easily. So, adjustments had to be made to follow the plans. I hate suprises that make me re-do work.

Gerry

Getting back to the subjuect of down & side thrust, I think you cannot go wrong by STARTING with what the deigner did.

After that, downthrust is mainly determined by level flight, power on/off, inverted flight, power on/off, and where your CG is for you particular airplane. Very factual.

Side thrust, however, is a bit more loosey-goosey, and sometimes has to do with the pilots preference. Also, the exact body build and where you want to add trim vs let the plane track comes into play.

For example, too much right thrust will not be noticed in level flight, but shows up dramatically in loops. Maybe not even the inside loops, but outside ones. Of course, you have to determine if the variation in looping is side thrust or left/right balance.

I believe it takes at least 100 flights of concentrated effort to really trim out a pattern plane, and even then, you learn a bit more on the second 100 flights, too.