Woah....yes it sure DOES sound like a lot of work...and time. How critical is that, cause we don't have a lot of time...we have a deadline to flight-test this "puppy." In all honesty, my building skills are OK, but I'm no Ed Kazmirski...I'll try hard, but no matter what I do, it isn't too hard to find finishing flaws, (lumps and bumps), in my models. I've always said "...my planes look best from a distance of about five feet".

We are absolutely going to have to test-fly the Simlas by mid-September at the latest.

Duane

This is absolutely great...it's exactly what I wanted........ that some people might be interested enough to look the thread up here in RCU, and that some might actually "plow" through it from the beginning. However be warned, there are a lot of "cow patties" among all the gems found in the 82 pages of the Ed Kazmirski's Taurus thread.

I am also hoping that friends of Ed who witnessed, or were part of his "inner circle" would be able to add to or corrrect information in the thread. So far that hasn't happened, but it still might.

Duane

I told Jeff he'd better get some kits in the hopper. The Taurus truly is a joy to fly. I highly modified mine way back in the early 80s..back before "vintage" pattern became important. Don't blame me because all those decisions were made long ago when I built my Top Flite kit. At the time, I wanted a "modern" Taurus, and that's what I got. The pictures included here were taken back in 2005 when I finally finished the plane I started back in 1981. The picture without the canopy in flight was taken on its 2nd flight on approach for landing. The other picture was taken later...it sports a Brett-like paint scheme with yellow transparent Monokote. The fuselage is mostly painted.

With the mods I made, less dihedral, vertical hinge line for the rudder, different stab, the Taurus flies even better, and is capable of more maneuvers where a "Knife Edge" is required, such as "point rolls" etc. Truth be known, you can modify your Taurus, (like mine) to improve its already great flight characteristics, and make it even better, or you can build it "stock" for a true reproduction. Personally, I really like the way my modified bird flies; I've never flown a "stock" version.

Duane

Dwayne,

Nice job. Excellent article.

Nic

I enjoyed the article as well...good job, and thanks.[8D]

Well, my issue of MA finally arrived and the first article I read was Duane's offering of Kaz. I think the article is nicely written and informative. The folk's at MA also did a fine job of the layout. Most of you guys don't know this, but Duane sent me a rough draft with the pictures for feedback as I used to be an editor at MAN. After reading and seeing the material, I knew the article would be a winner! Outstanding job Duane! Now, write an article on Tom Brett! You've got a ton of material and the article would be a great continuation of the pioneers of the early R/C greats.

FB

Duane,

Outstanding artilce ! ! ! You should be proud of your fine work.

David

FB...The "rough draft you refer to was close to my final draft. [8D] Your critiquing of the article was a tremendous help, and probably accounts for the fact that I feel this one was the best written overall. I will have you know however, I didn't take your advice all the time. Those were probably the times when you shook your head and said,"...why did he say that ...again?"

Rich, thanks for your help, and thanks for all the nice comments. Again, I'd love it if some of you could express your feelings to Michael Ramsey, Model Aviation editor. That is the best way to prove to him that he didn't make a mistake by accepting an article on RC pattern history, and justifying his faith in me. His first response when I proposed this over a year ago was to turn down a feature article, and only print about 400 words for "In the Air". That would have been a shame. Please let him know.

As for Tom Brett, it has crossed my mind, but without Michael asking for it, (another article on the greats of RC pattern, it's not likely to happen...too many other interests competing for space in the magazine.

Maybe MAN

Duane

I would appreciate comments from you about what you particularly liked or didn't like about the Kazmirski article. As an author, (of sorts), I'm interested in your feedback on the Kaz! article.

More importantly as it relates to the future, what details or information would you like me to include in the upcoming Simla construction article? What would you like the focus of the article to concentrate on...(ie the background or historical nature of the plane, or the flying characteristics of the completed model)?

I'd also like to get a feel for the mindset of you folks who may potentially want to build your very own Simla. There are several questions the builder will need to ask himself first, such as how are you planning to fly it, (sport or competition), and how do you intend to equip it?

I'm interested in how the prospective builder will want to build and fly their Simla, and how many would like to build it a certain way. What kinds of questions/considerations am I talking about?

Are you going to build yours:

1) As a faithful reproduction in every detail to Ed's, or do you use modern constructions techniques.
2) What kind of power, (and how much power) will you want to use. How many will fly it like Ed did...on a .61?
3) How many will build the original 102" wingspan version, and how many will opt for the 96" NATS version?

Thanks in advance for your input/feedback.

Actual construction details and photos will probably not play that large a part in the article...the builder of this plane will probably, (but not necessarily have to have), experience in building.

Duane

Hi Duane,

I totally enjoyed the Kaz article, he was a person that a beginner in multi, like I was at the time, could really look up to. At the time of the MAN article I was a Junior at Purdue University in Aeronautical Engineering and I and all of my modeling friends poured over the article for all of the nuances of his design. It was a great time to be a modeler, bad to have to study all the time.

I'll write Michael also. Editors can only go by the feed back they receive. I have written several articles for MA and know how nice it is when someone drops a note or two about your work.

I am looking forward to the next articles and a Simla build. To answer your questions...

Use the most modern materials and techniques - Ed would I think.
I'll use an electric outrunner motor equivalent to a 90. The batteries up front will help in balancing it. I can always throttle back.
A shorter wingspan would be overall a better choice although I am not overly bothered with the longer wing.
I'll cover with Monokote - bright red.

I have been flying a Astro Hog, lower dihedral and bigger vertical/rudder, for a year now with an electric setup and it is a great flyer. It is neat to finally own the airplane I wished for when I was a kid.

Thanks again for the article and good work,

Ben

I understand about article space (been there, done that). When I fire off a note to Michael, I'll bring up Tom. BTW, Michael and I go back a number of years. He's a great guy!

FB

What would you like me to enphasize in the Simla construction article, the actual construction, the unique history of this plane, or the flying characteristics, (or a little of each)?

As posted in the Ed Kazmirski's Taurus thread, here are a couple pictures from last evening as Simla reaches completion. Like I said, I tried to pose the plane like the famous photos, but the "stand-in" for Ed was tired, hot, and much older, (it was incredibly humid last evening)

Duane

Duane,

Did Ed say in your interview that Simla was named for the town? I was under the impression that it was "similar" to a Taurus. "Simla" would be phonetically very close to how one would say "similar" if they had any sort of city accent. Maybe it was a play on both ideas?

Andy

Simla come from the town in the Himalayian mountains in India where he had traveled. The World Engines ad mentions that, (what a source of information that World Engines ad has been), and they had no idea when they wrote those couple paragraphs how we'd be searching every word for clues about the plane 45 years later.

Interestingly, Ed DID say he used to joke with people by first flying the Taurus-2, then the Simla...then telling them it was "simla" to the Taurus; he specifically told me that in our discussion.

Duane

Thanks for the quick answer. Neat how trivia gets found sometimes, isn't it?!?!

Andy

Andy Kunz - AMA 46063
Spektrum Development Team

Andy;

I must have "Simla" on the brain. For just a second I thought your title was "Simla Development Team"

Actually, you are one of the "official members" of the "Simla Development Team", and your name is listed on the plans as a contributor by Jeff.

Duane

You definitely DO have "Simla on the brain." I see these threads, photos, and articles as ample evidence

For the ailerons? You guys were too generous. Jeff asked me if I wanted my name on the list and I declined.

Andy

For the ailerons? What are you referring to?

I reviewed all your contributions from about a year ago when we were hot-and-heavy back and forth brainstorming, and agreed with Jeff that you made significant, (meaning your suggestions mattered in coming up with the end result), contributions to the team and deserve to be on it.

Unless you would be offended...you're staying on the plans.

Jeff and I discussed a built-up aileron construction as a way to keep them light and warp-resistant using off-the-shelf wood and ribs.

I wish I had time to contribute more. I didn't think what I did was much of a contribution, to be honest, but they're his plans. It takes a lot more than that to offend me.

Andy

The "offend" comment was not intended to be taken seriously.

Let me be totally honest with you. When Jeff first included you, I told him that I didn't think you had contributed enough to be included. Then I reviewed all the posts from everybody during that period, including yours...and realized you did indeed contribute several meaningful, pivotal posts that contributed to the effort...(BTW the ones I had in mind had nothing to do with the ailerons, which in the end were made from solid pieces anyway.

I honestly feel that this was a very fortunate international team that came together at just the right time. Without all of you, this project either couldn't have been done at all, or would have taken much longer, or would not have resulted in a product as faithful to the original Simla as the prototypes are. It is not an easy matter, (despite what Cees says), to accurately reconstruct a 45 year old model from a handful of photos and have it anywhere near accurate. In fact, the success of this whole project hinged on the existance of a SINGLE picture, (see attached). Without that picture, the entire plane would have been guesswork.

I see a couple places on the prototype plans where further improvements are needed, but overall, I think the plane is a relatively accurate representation of Ed's original thanks to EVERYONE who contributed. Thanks again to all of you.

Duane