But Duane, do you know what you are saying??
It is 0:18 midnight. I am on the other side of the world.

Ed did say he would have shortened the fuse of the kit-Taurus, and you can see a picture of this variant, yesterday or the day before.
But we are talking about the orginals.
Chuck did say Ed did not left anything behind, he did modify the orginal fuselage, and why not. He reused the fuselage.
Replace your mind in that of Ed's. 3d place in Belgium. He did not know that we would find the old Taurus so valuable.
He was thinking of the Sim-la so he used the B version to test his mod's but he never shortened it. I never tell you that!!!!! That's why I used the word orginal centresection

For all those people who where interested in the Taurus he would have tought what's possible, shorten the fuse with 2inch, let's try.
For all the others, the future was the Sim-la.
And this all was happening a long time after he was in Belgium!!!! So the Taurussus in the cave have (nearly) the same lenght of course!!!
Cees

Well according to my Beachcomber plan it used "Pylon Brand nylon hinges secured with small pins"

Also it was a Jim Kirkland design - lets no confuse ourselves any more than we are already !

Cees, If you look at my post #73 on page 3 of this thread would you not say that the moment arm on Eds Taurus II looks appreciably shorter than a standard Taurus.

Ray

Ray,

When I lived in that time, and I did build the modificated Taurus with a shortened fuselage I also would have a picture of it with ed on the background.
So it is Ed , it is the Tausus II but does not have to be a plane of Ed.

Cees

Cees,

That's an interesting theory. The picture was taken in Japan when Ed was on one of his demonstration tours. He did several of these I believe - Duane mentioned one to South Africa. Are you saying that this is a model borrowed from someone in Japan. Seems a bit unlikely.

Ray

But Ray,

I think in that period of the picture there where more than two Taurussus then we talking about. So why could not have Ed a own and maybe thé orginal first Taurus II.
It has a "high mounted motor", so orginal/kit model, with shortened fuselage and modern painting sceme.
This model does not has anything to do with the A version neither the B version we are talking about now.
The second picture of you message 73 page 3 is not a Taurus II, but a orginal/kit version with a sheeted stab, not shortened!!!!!!!!!.
By the way in Belgium, 1963, world champs, nearly 50 % where taurussus, 17 of 39, from S.Africa and Europe so why not Japan?

AND MAYBE ABOUT 20 MINUTES THE ORGINAL FUSELAGE WILL GO TO JAPAN!

Cees

If I may interpose here chaps, and add another wee conundrum, I have here an ancient 1961 'Aeromodeller', which has a photo page '...taken at the 1961 US Nationals.' there, along with Tom Bretts' original 'Nimbus' is this machine, in what is obviously Ed's favourite colours. It cannot be a modified Taurus as we know it, but is it possibly the link between 'Orion' and 'Taurus?
Evan.

Cees,

Well who knows, I guess anything is possible. I was trying not to mention Les Fruh's models but as you say the one in post #73 is a standard Taurus but with a straight TE wing. The one in post #77 appears to be a different model - note the number of stars on the fin - and has a shorter moment arm and a more upright rudder hinge line. I think, as a modeller from the same area, Chicago, he was following Ed's Taurus developments. But lets not get into Mr Fruh's models - Ed's are complicated enough.

So this is a C version then !!

Evan,

You will note that the caption to that photograph says "Doug Spreng's new model, much after the style of his earlier Orion" I wonder if that is correct as an adjacent shot shows Doug's Flat Top Stormer at the same event. As you suggest it should probably read " Ed Kazmirski's new model.................." Actually the model looks more like a modified Dunham Voltsplane to me.

Ray



Ray

Ray


Ray, when Ed went to Belgium, there where 17 other Tauruses, no of them with a straight TE

Ed’s B version was the fuselage of his Taurus from the nats and the wings of the preproduction Taurus of the MAN Magazin.
When he fitted his original fuselage with a sheeted stab, he did paint the stab in the original color scheme, because the wing has also these original curved lines. He also did make a sticker on it (B version).
This is the reason why the second Taurus has a sheeted stab and a the old original color scheme

I think we will see soon/once see a picture of that combination!!

The next modification can be the straightened TE , with modern scheme.
Because of the experimental character Ed did not spend much time to copy the original color scheme anymore with the curved lines on the wings.
This is the picture we already have seen Ed sitting near his Taurus, message 107.
It’s a pity that we cannot see the tail and color scheme of this (pictures please),
The lowered thustline of the motor let me think this is the fuselage of the B version.

Other Taurus flyers did follow the master and sheeted there stabs (and fins) and straightened there TE of there Taurus. So all these variants you will see in many pictures.

Last experiment of Ed on the B version you see auctioned last night.
The swept back wing and extra fins to go to the Sim-la

Cees

Gentlemen, rest me to answer one question

Why could have Ed mixed up his two Taurussen before he went to Belgium.

What would you do when you had the possibility?
Not chosen the best fuselage and the best pear of wing for our A version?
Of course you would do!!!!!

The A-version
The new fuselage of the pre production Taurus shown on the MAN magazine with the reeds already build in, ready to show to the world. Ambassador of the Top Flite kit at that moment.
This fuselage was better of construction, elevator and rudder hanging, motor mount and so on.
And why together with the old nat winning wings proved during the nats?
Maybe because they where more straight, he know them and he found the profile was better?
When the fitting was identical (interchangeable) it was not a problem to use the wings and build in the only one aileron servo back in the wing because it already was during the nats.

His second combination (B version) was the other wing (MAN picture) and fuselage (nat winning).
I think Ed did use the proportional in that what we can read in the article and at the end we can see during the auction of the last Taurus yesterday.

Btw
It was not strange that Ed did not choice his proportional plane in Belgium as we can read in the article.
It was constructive not the best plane, old fuse and not the best wings
The motor could have been also less good
The Proportional Ed was not familiar with in the windy conditions in Belgium.

Cees

Evan

You come up with the most interesting "stuff". Where did THAT plane come from?? You're "blowing my mind" , (an old '1960s term).
I've never seen THAT before.

Cees

I was kidding, but a face-to-face talk is probably what it would take for us to completely discuss all the different factors we've speculated about the last few days.

I don't know exactly how the taper-wing Taurus-2 came about, but it was an attempt to improve the flight characteristics of the original Taurus compared to the 1962 Nats winner. The fuselage was apparently shorter, the dihedral was increased, the wing and stab were thicker than the original, and the wing shape had a straight trailing edge. Those are significant differences, and I'm not even sure the changes were beneficial compared to the original. That second version of the Taurus was no where near as famous or popular as the original. The Taurus 2 had more modern building techniques compared to the original Taurus. It could very well be that Ed took his back-up plane in the '62 Nats, and modified it to become the Taurus-2, (I can't believe he wouldn't have had a back-up plane, but there is no trace of it). I don't understand why there could be differences in the widths of the fuselages if there were originally two identical Taurus models, one of which was modified to be the T-2. Once a fuselage is built, it wouldn't be widened or narrowed which tells me the two plane's fuselages were built at different times....but we may never know unless a former friend of Eds comes on this forum and answers the questions for sure.

Interestingly, I would have DECREASED the dihedral, and kept the length the same while perhaps adopting the new wing shape. All I know is that the King Altair (built by Kazmirski friend Vic Husak), was very much influenced by the Taurus, and seems to be a "perfected Taurus" to me. My "handle" isn't kingaltair for nothing...the plane is a wonderful, beautiful-flying aircraft. It was decades ahead of its time in many people's opinion, and I'm told handles much like an early 2-meter plane.

The Simla and King Altair were built and designed at the same time as part of an experiment with large pattern aircraft, (which he felt should fly better than the small 6 to 8 lb pattern planes of the time), among several friends from Chicago, (Kazmirski and Husak being the two principle designers). The King was a little smaller at 80" wingspan, while the Silma was anywhere between 96 to 102 inches, depending on which report you read. I have done a LOT of research on the Simla, and have read everything I could get my hands on. The Simla was my main focus of the interview I had with Ed Kazmirski in early August last year. There are no drawings, (I know of), and very few pictures. Evan from NZ, (pimmnz), helped me with a small article and pictures a few months back. If ANYONE knows anything about this plane, please get in touch with me. I have written what I know of the plane in the July, and I think October issues of Model aviation. Ed lamented that the original Simla was damaged by a professional flood light used to take the picture shown above when it crashed down right on the C/G. The repairs added 12 oz to the plane's weight, therefore making it less than a stellar performer in contests, although Ed DID fly it in several contests. After a short time, the Simla was stored away under his house. After he moved, (about six months later), he remembered the plane being stored there in the crawlspace, but when he contacted the new owner, and went to look for it, the Simla had disappeared.

About this time work concerns took most of his time as he moved away from R/C, so the Simla was never rebuilt. A friend of mine and I would like to get enough concrete information together to reconstruct the Simla, but it will be difficult.

ChuckIf you noted anything in the house referring to plane drawings, or anything else having to do with his other planes, I would be VERY INTERESTED in talking with you about them. Please contact me through RCU.

Thanks
Duane

Duane you wrote:

__________________________________________________ _________________________
It could very well be that Ed took his back-up plane in the '62 Nats, and modified it to become the Taurus-2, (I can't believe he wouldn't have had a back-up plane, but there is no trace of it). I don't understand why there could be differences in the widths of the fuselages if there were originally two identical Taurus models, one of which was modified to be the T-2. Once a fuselage is built, it wouldn't be widened or narrowed which tells me the two plane's fuselages were built at different times....but we may never know unless a former friend of Eds comes on this forum and answers the questions for sure.
__________________________________________________ _________________________

I think that we do have a problem.
I never did tell you he had a backup plane at the nats, maybe he had, but he did not had it at the moments he went to Belgium. That is why he did use the orginal scratchbuild Taurus and the preproduction Taurus of the kit of the MAN magazine ( and mixed them).

The Taurus 2 (proportional version?)is of later date and not interesting for our situation and "cave" moment , the period Belgium with only normal Taurusses, the 17 of the championships.

If you and others are interested to go with me step-by step trough the information, pictures and film I can let you try prove yourself that I am right.
I go through each step and wait for feed back of each of you after the step, and then the follow step we will do.
Let me know if you want to go with me and we will try. Let me also know if you want to go with me to wait for your feedback.
I wait till tomorrow to start, if more of you want to. We need the film of Belgium visible, the pictures we need, I have!

So If you want? let me know!


Cees

Is that you on the left. You look different in the little picture.

I might want to go step by step, but I don't know if everybody else would, so it might be better to do that (off this thread) by personal PM or e-mail. I may be the only one in America, (or world-wide) who doesn't fully understand and follow, and isn't 100% in agreement with you.

I am at work here at my hospital here in Asheville, NC, when I read and answer most of these messages. I'm supposed to be working most of the time, so I can't really spend the time and follow along with you step by step while at work. I'll have to do this from home.

Duane

Well,

Speaking for myself and probably others, I would like to see and hear the step by step! I think its an excellent idea.

Lets do this for all to see! Lets do this for all to see!


Regards,

DR

Duane,

I did ad a second picture, taken in summer,
The other is taken in last winter (when flying with +6 baufort wind) , so more isolation also on my head.
The other person (right) is my younger brother, also modeller.

I want to take time for each step , maybe two days so everybody has time to go.
Otherwise, in the Netherlands it is 23:00 in the evening now , in the USA about 15:00 - 17:00 our.
When you are the only one , you will get a special threatment (is this the right word?) from me, in my "history hospital"

Cees

OK DR you are ont the list!
And @ Duane, I think it is important to make my story believeble for more persons than me alone, for later. That's also a reason. When The Taurus is in the AMA museum, retired.


Cees

I would be pleased to contribute any additional pictures, confirm measurements or any other grunt work I can do while I still have the planes.
Chuck

Duane, et al this conversation is interesting, but probably not going to go anywhere, other than that Ed probably took stuff he already had and modified what was easy, and built new what he needed. More interesting is that in any of the published articles Ed wrote he hardly ever wrote in the first person, it was always 'we'. I have a feeling that much of the development was a group effort, and Les Fruh was probably one of the major partners. It may be productive to research what Les was up to, and ask questions of him if he is still around. As for the 1961 Nats photo, well the English mags did try to follow what was happening, and what was not so interesting to the US publishers was certainly of interest to the rest of the world. We must remind ourselves that Ed started with an Astro Hog, which 'we' modified to become 'Orion' and 'we' then modified that to become Taurus. This constant development resulted in Taurus 2, for propo, then through to Simla, and there is a photo of Les and a similar model to Simla too. It is not surprising that there are so many variations, it is surprising that so much has survived, though obviously not enough to be specific about the genealogy. Still, it is fun and my versions of Orion, Tauri and Taurus provide me with most of my relaxation flying.
Evan.

Chuck,

I am very happy you join us, you're on the list. You are a most valuable member. Or must I say "internist" of our patiënts?
And of course we will have additional questions for you, already did help use and did make this all possible Thank You for that.
May I send you one or more PM's or e- mails about these questions, I will note to the others that we use on any moment this extra information from you,
Then our communication will not disturb the steps of our repair program.

Do you have the idea how long you wiil have the planes withe you, others we have to be in a hurry with this.

And also for all the others members................
maybe on one moment it is you, who can yell me that I was wrong, did overlook something ........
Because in our "History Hospital" everything is possible. But we only can try to repair the history of our two Taurusses, and not change Becauase we are modellers not more than that. (It is 7:18 in the morning now)

Evan, you message was a moment for this one, I did not see it.
Do you want on the list ?

Cees

Certainly Cees, why not. To illustrate my point, here is another version of T2, this one is Ed in Japan, Sept. 1964 RCM&E. The notes with the image give the instructions to convert the standard Flop Tite kit to this version. There is no thickening of the wing section or widening of the fuselage mentioned, and the photo shows a pretty standard looking Taurus fuselage apart from the shortened moment. Another variation in the paint job too. So how many different versions do we have now?
Evan.

Hello Evan,
Happy to join us, on the list.

In our step program we only are interested in our two Taurusses, and only on the championchips in Belgium, that will be our short period in the long history of The Taurus.
Chuck gives me the very importend information already in his pictures of the auctions on e-bay, and maybe more when we need.
And of course we will look over the borders of this periods but it may not disturb our attempt, only when we need it.

After this short period "hundreds" of Taurusses did fly all over the world, in every country, and a part of them was the Taurus II.

Thank you for go with us.
We start this evening but you do not have to be with me at that moment, we live all over the world in our own moment of the day, busy with making our own history.
That's is why I want to use my step program, so you can do your part of the job on the moment of the day you like! The next step will be taken when I have my feed back and every member is satisfied with the result of the step we just maked.

Cees

Fine Cees. Here then is my contribution. I will start with The Aeromodeller July 1962. I will only deal with published information and propose a path that may illuminate your Taurus'. Points to note are the fact that there is no name, and sewn hinges. Eds' name label in cockpit.

Oops, Piccie from Oct 1962 RCM&E. This is the Aeromodeller one.

Here is a shot of Ed's experimental pusher "Taurus" taken at the 1965 Toledo show to add to the collection and general confusion.

Ray

And finally, taken in Genk at the World Champs. The model now has the 'N-USA' lettering as required by the FAI for international competition. The text notes that this Taurus has flown in many countries and 3 continents. I believe that these photos all show the same model, and this is currently in the safe hands of the VR/CS. No rabbit on the fin. Which only leaves you 'other' fuselage. I might have a bit of info on that one, but it's a long shot only.
Evan.