Ustik.

Thanks for reply,

I will study eveything you write carefully and will respond soon.
I will built the Taurus and see what could ever be the wing postion.
The green line I think is too far backward, I already did notice that, but the orginal wing was more backwart then the wing of auction 2 on this moment.
Even the wing with straight trailing edge the leading edge was more forward, see the black and white sideview.
Before I did show the drawing with the green line I already did make several sketches with dimensions, so I react with I know the distance. may be to soon?

The green line gives me the idea that there was a bulkhead there, and the fuselage does not have plywood doublers I think , maybe the fuselage ever did fly with an Orion wing with extra bulkhead on that position.

What do you mean with this? I do not understand this.
Do you think it was yes or no in Africa?
>>>>>>>>>
I could even believe it was in Africa because it looks rather similar to the other fuse. (You know how hard it was for us to notice all the fine details.)
>>>>>>>>>

When I built the plane it has to be balanced without extra weight, because Ed would not used that either, thats why we see all that modifications on the centresection I think.
Servo's I allways mount in length direction, is better.

Ad in text 1:

It is not strange these extra strips on the saddles.
This is an orginal Taurus fuselage, Ed did not have drawings I think, only sketches.
After flying he could have changed the angle of the wing to trim the plane. That he has to do because the stab is fixed.
I think this is a better way to reduce the angle between wing and stab, because the downthrust of the motor.
Change the wing angle untill you have zero position of the elevator with de speed you want.

I start with a wingposition as the carrierplane, because Ed did change the plane in one modification, reeds to proportional, silk covered to sheeted stab and normal wing to wing with straight TE. If Ed did his homework well, he could use the centresection of the fuselage without modifications. It is also possible that he removed a bulkhead because of the volume of the proportional radio, I already thought.

Greets

Cees

Oh, I forgot you're drawing your Taurus, not Ed's. Sorry, I thought you would duplicate the position of the old proportional servos.

I meant the two fuses in Africa could have been slightly different even though Dennis Hunt said the two models were identical. I just can't believe that Ed built two identical models, and the two fuses may look rather similar. We can't really see that in the crate picture.

BTW, looking at the attached picture I even think there are balsa pieces put later in front of leading edge and behind trailing edge (not only onto the wing saddles). And maybe Ed removed the old rails for the reeds servos and that gave the (tool) dents and the impression of a coarse build (even the piece of foam behind the tank is damaged). The old rails were higher in the fuse so with the lower propo rails the old switch holes were covered, hence the two new holes lower and aft of them.

And an addition as well: The unswept wing and the swept wing seem to have slightly different root chord lengths, but the unswept wing seems to be longer! This was against my expectation but could be true, even though these measurements from pictures are rather unreliable. This could mean the leading/trailing edge pieces were added when the swept wing came in use.

UStik,

I did tell so often that the two fuelages in the crate are differend, with a lot of details why do not you believe so

>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>>> >
I meant the two fuses in Africa could have been slightly different even though Dennis Hunt said the two models were identical. I just can't believe that Ed built two identical models, and the two fuses may look rather similar. We can't really see that in the crate picture.
>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>>> >

My explanation is that Duane did misunderstood Dennis,
Dennis did built also a Taurus and that Taurus would have been nearly the same as the Taurus on the left side in the crate!
It is a pity that there were no pictures of the three Taurusses together.
The taurus on the left side in the crate is like a Thunderstreak, on the right side I see a Gloster Meteor, that's the way I see these two!


Only the Taurus on the right RIGHT side in the crate is interesting for me! This is the Taurus I building now (Wester Taurus)!.
The Taurus on the the left side is not interesting, there are thousends of them!

Cees

It is very possible, even likely that Ed built two Taurus’ at the same time. There is a precedent for this. When he built the original Orion’s he built two of them at the same time. Actually 3 or maybe 4 were built at the same time. Two were for him and at least one or two for a friend of his named Bob (can’t remember his last name), who shared in the building effort. I visted Ed‘s home for a meeting and afterward spent some time looking at the Orion’s which were almost ready for covering.

John W.

That would make sense...Ed was a world champ, and probably thought he would be on the team again. One of the rules back then was that if you were representing your country at a worlds then you had to have two models, one as a back-up. Given the state of the game back then, not a bad rule...
Evan.

UStik,


Repeat UStik Post 507 page 21>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>
But #2 fuse seems to have different proportions lengthwise. The antenna outlet is far behind the canopy because it is on the trailing edge former. Both visible formers seem to be cut out quite roughly. There are two "half" holes in the TE former (and two corresponding pressure marks on wing #2), and a similar "half hole" is in the fuselage side. Very strange.
>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>>> >>

This you can see on my drawing and most of the "old flyers" know this situation of the "half holes".
When the levers of the strip ailerons are far backwards there will be contact between these levers and former
Especially when you use "rubber bands" this is dangeraus
The position of the wing must be exact central, (even for the trimming of the plane of course).
You see Ed did make white marking dots to "centre" the trailing edge and give the aileron levers "room".
It will be clear that contact of the wing with any opbject (ground, other plane) can give you big troubles with this Russian Roulette solution.
Remarkable situation prooving this is "experimental".
In the Top Flite Taurus there is a distance between the levers and the former see red lines on the drawing part of Top Flite.

Repeat UStik Post 550 page 22>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>
The pressure mark you interpreted as former bulkhead position is more likely to be something completely different. I don't think it doesn't look like a torn out bulkhead at all. It looks rather like a "half hole", and the #1 fuse has a similar one. (Did you comment yet on the "half holes" on the trailing edge side?)
>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>>> >

I did give the position of the "#1 fuse has similar one"
Do you mean the tank retainer? Because this is one of the 11 remarkable points I see, this fuselage is a fuselage exactly produced from the Top Flite drawing, and so this you also will see in the Taurus fuselage from Dennis Hunt (when You ever see the inside!).
In a fuselage you never make this in the original sides because you ruin the strength.

Cees

Found another little shot of Ed taken at the 1965 US Nats. I guess this is the Simla.

Ray

Ray,

That is what I did mean with touching the ground when you start, touch and go, or start after a bad landing etc!
See my last message about the aileron levers and check the position of the wing when using rubber bands.
Nice picture, brings us back in that moment on that place.


Cees

John and Evan, thank you both for the clarification. Still I would assume or even expect that the two models were slightly different. One reason for this belief is the article I have about Phil Kraft at the 1967 WC. This article points out that Phil's other model had a thinner wing for the case of windy weather (the thick wing was only 18%, though). And the 1963 WC report said that Brooke had a choice as well (between the 19% version he used and his "slow job" ). I think it's just clever to have two different models to be prepared not only for a breakdown but also for different conditions.

Besides, I can't believe Ed would "waste" one build for an exact duplicate. What you told brings the word "gang" back to mind. Ed got two slightly different models because he needed a backup for the champs, and his fellows got one slightly different model each. This way they tested the variations (of moment arms, but maybe of wing thickness and planform as well) mentioned in Ed's "chat" (RCM&E) article. I feel this statement (of Ed) has to somehow fit in our puzzle.

Cees, the explanation of the holes for the aileron bellcranks makes sense to me, but that of the "half holes" in the fuselage side still not. I can't see a tank retainer or something similar in the plan. I would guess it has to do with a kind of linkage used with the reeds equipment.

I'm still musing about a hint given by Duane. He mentioned the doublers on the fuselage sides noticeable in #1 fuse but not in #2. I think there's the diagonal outline aft of the trailing edge former in #2 (the doublers had this diagonal grain orientation. Maybe the doublers are really there but the fuse was still not strong enough, so even more doublers were added, now with longitudinal grain orientation.

And another thought: I would second Evan's idea that the front fuselage outline is standard, except that it is a bit shorter and therefore the #2 fuse is not quite as tall as #1 at the leading edge former. The rear fuse seems to be slicker, not sure whether ab initio or ex post. (See the undistorted pictures.)

UStik,


See blue arrow, did you mean this!, Top Flite Drawing.
The tank retainer will keep the fueltank in position.

And I did not speak about elevator bell cranks but aileron levers.

Repeat UStik >>>>>>
I'm still musing about a hint given by Duane. He mentioned the doublers on the fuselage sides noticeable in #1 fuse but not in #2. I think there's the diagonal outline aft of the trailing edge former in #2 (the doublers had this diagonal grain orientation. Maybe the doublers are really there but the fuse was still not strong enough, so even more doublers were added, now with longitudinal grain orientation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>

Was this in message of me?, fuse #2 has probably only doublers to give the TE dowel "body".
The doublers in fuselage 1 are drawn in the Top Flite plans.


Cees

WESTER TAURUS

Update of the drawing, nearly ready to start bulding! Only a few former to do.


UStik,>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
And another thought: I would second Evan's idea that the front fuselage outline is standard, except that it is a bit shorter and therefore the #2 fuse is not quite as tall as #1 at the leading edge former. The rear fuse seems to be slicker, not sure whether ab initio or ex post. (See the undistorted pictures.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>>> >


What do you mean with fronts fuselage and what with rear?

You can open both pictures and built your own WESTER TAURUS

Cees

Sorry Cees, elevator was an error, has to be aileron. And I saw the tank retainer but didn't write what I mean, that I don't think the groove in the fuselage side is due to the retainer. I rather would think of a linkage for reeds equipment.

As to Ed landing his big one (Simla): I know what you mean about the wing mounting with dowels and rubber bands. The adjustment problems are solved by the form-locking mount with front dowels and back bolts. But the old mount wasn't bad at all. With a suitable tape on the wing saddles, for instance, it is a friction-locking mount and, once adjusted, will stay in place even on landings as Ed shows. The Simla plug-in wings may be even more prone to trouble due to their delicate construction.

As Evan pointed out, things not always went well in the old times, hence not only a backup model but also a model built to minimize damage. In case of a mild crash, the fuselage may survive because it's built very sturdy and the wing because it can slip out of it's saddle. See the plan detail you posted, there are only slopes but no edges, and the (hard) formers are a bit away from the wing's leading and trailing edge.

I intensely exploited this crash-proof design of the old models when I tried to learn flying in the 1960s. I used to joke the only case it doesn't help is when you land the model through an open garden door (what I even managed to do).

I forgot: I mean the fuselage in front of the wing has exactly the same shape, except that it is a wee bit shorter on #2. The fuse length behind the wing seems to be the same but the fuse is taller/higher on #1.

Found on a C/L newsgroup.

Ray

Just a couple comments: First, about 20 years ago, I competed in one of the last Chicago Model Masters C/L events, held at Kickapoo Woods, near Riverdale, Illinois. Toward the end of the event, someone mentioned that Ed Kazmirski was flying in the adjacent R/C field.

Now, Ed hadn't been too active flying R/C, since proportional gear came out. He claimed he could never get used to it, and preferred the old reed transmitters.

I walked over, and he was flying a Taurus pattern ship with a venerable K&B 45 engine, but with a whale of a baseball-bat thick wing. Between flights, he commented that he was experimenting with a 33% wing thickness!

I began to spout Carl Goldberg's teachings, of which he was well aware. He explained that he wanted to try a setup with LOTS of drag, to slow down the airplane, especially in nose-down maneuvers....

Ustik

We all know that Ed Kazmirki had the speciallity to reduce weight on every place where it was possible and justified..
The wings have no nose spar for example.

The fuselage of the auction 2 was original designed as his contest plane and especially build around the reeds radio, no extra volume, so no extra weight.
When you compare this fuselage with the fuselage of the Top Flite Taurus then you must not look to dimensions but surfaces and weight.

I did calculate the surface. The surface of the Top Flite Taurus has 3184 cm2, the Wester Taurus will have 2560 cm2, So the Top Flite has 24 % more.
When we compare the tailcone (rudder/CG) the Top Flite Taurus is 2240 cm2 the Wester Taurus will have 1840 cm2. So the Top Flite tailcone has 22 % more.

So also air resistance of the Wester Taurus will a lot less.

The nose of the Wester Taurus is 10 % shorter (20 cm / 18 cm) the tailcone will have the same length so absolutly has to be lighter to get the CG on the right position and it will be lighter, of course not 22 %!.
With the stab silk covered the CG will be oké.

Why Ed did not use the plane this way later, after Africa? (Because in the future I will proove the Wester Taurus is a copy of the Taurus on right side in the Africa crate)
Because the proportional radio did not fit on a normal way! only by using the D tube, but!!!!!

Repeat UStik!
>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;
As Evan pointed out, things not always went well in the old times, hence not only a backup model but also a model built to minimize damage. In case of a mild crash, the fuselage may survive because it's built very sturdy and the wing because it can slip out of it's saddle. See the plan detail you posted, there are only slopes but no edges, and the (hard) formers are a bit away from the wing's leading and trailing edge.
>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;

And that was the reason I did tell in the past, this is not a normal way to use the plane, only experimental!
Because when things did go wrong, the rubber bands will do, but your decoder is seperated from your receiver.

And Top Flite? In the (later) period the Top Flight Taurus was designed they did make the fuselage higher, so the tailcone weight was more-more , so the nose did get more length!
Every radio you could built in this fuselage, and you could walk around it.


Cees

Hang on there Cees, the Top Flite plan must have been drawn before December 1962, just to get into the Jan 1963 MAN. Production lead times would have been a couple of months at least, even then. So, no, no changes in that drawing, apart from kitting simplicities, from Ed's 1962 Nats model, apart from that removable hatch under the tailplane.
Evan.

Evan,

The Top Flite Taurus drawing already was there before Ed went to Africa (april 1962), because Dennis and Ed did use the drawing to build there Taurusses.
Why do you think Dennis did say his plane was exactly the same as the Taurus from Ed, eccept the hangings?

Yes, because they did use the same drawings.
And the drawing never changed so I do see 11 remarkable points on the fuselage from Ed's Taurus that he did use the drawing from Top Flite, so>>>>>>>>>>> preproduction Taurus before the kit is released.

And how did Top Flite make the drawing
Yes, they get a dimensions sketch on brown paper from Ed.

And do we see the Taurus from Ed and the Taurus from Dennis both in the crate of Africa.
No, we do not, the Taurus From Dennis we only see on one single picture of him. This Taurus was in Africa , on top of the crate!


Ed and Dennis not only did use the same drawings, also pilot, nosewheel stearing lever, elevator lever system.
Maybe wood materials as machined sheeting of the fuselage, doublers, and so on.

An interesting question is did Top Flite know about the proportional radio when they did make the drawings before april 1962?
Or did they make the fuselage higher to make it easy to built in the radio?

So? Let me hear, when were the first proportional radio's used on the contest meetings?



Cees

Ray,

Ed did thinking a lot of the way I do, only he did not had the electronics.

The Taurus, is designed by Ed (and Top Flite) to fly with a speed as constant as possible, but there will be variations. (proportional control loop)
The drag of the plane, especially the wing, is greater than normal, so with reduced RPM the speed will be low also vertical.
That's the reason I did use the Taurus to try speedcontrol, engine to accelerate and drag to reduce the speed.
My cruise control works excellent and I do use it often.

So, Where Ed did stop, we can continue.
An other dead end road for him was the proportional, not familar with, but also to big.
Now we have our modern proportional radio and I think his original contest Taurus deserves another change.
That is why!

Cees

Cees, Top Flite made no changes to Ed's 1962 Nats airplane, cause Ed did the kit plans. If you check the October 1962 RCM&E plans with the Top Flite and MAN plan they are all very close dimensionally. And I do not think that the kit plan was available before the African adventure, or Ed would have sent that to Dennis instead of the brown paper, so it was not ready before the African visit. The models in the box must have been very close to each other, or the wing of one would not have fitted the other. The radio fit must have been the same too, as Ed only had one Tx in Africa, so far as we can tell. Therefore the fuselages would have to the same, dimensionally, to fit the gear.
Evan.

Hello Evan,

Repeat Evan,
>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>
And I do not think that the kit plan was available before the African adventure,
>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>
Try Evan, try.
It will make the story much easier for you.

Repeat Evan,
>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
or Ed would have sent that to Dennis instead of the brown paper, so it was not ready before the African visit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
Did was not I wrote,

Ed was an inventor no draughtsman, so he let do the job by Top Flite, Ed did give the dimensions of his Taurus (on brown paper) to Top Flite, Top Flite did do detailengineering (and preparing materials?)
It is because of I see 11 points of detail engineering in the fuselage of auction 1 that they (Ed’s gang) did use the Top Flite plans and materials to build the Taurus.
Dennis did the same, also did use this Top Flite plans to build his Taurus.

Look to the drawings Orion and Taurus and you see the style of the Top Flite draughtsman.
Compare the drawing of October 1962 RCM&E and you see the style of RCM&E draft man.
Compare the fuselage of auction 2 (style Ed) and the fuselage of auction 1 (Style Top Flite) and you see the difference the way Ed did built and the way Top Flite did want to let him do.
Look to the Taurus from Les Fruh and see the style of the real Taurus from the “gang�.
And that’s the same as the Taurus from auction2 and from that Taurus there was no drawing only dimensional sketches.

That’s the reason I do make those drawings, but from the first example, the African crate version!

Cees

Really? The African crate models are standard Taurus, eyewitness account. The model you are drawing was built sometime after Africa and before the 1963 World Champs, not a lot of time, hence the rather rough build of the original. It was likely to have been the proportional model at the '63 contest, but there does not seem to be a recognisable picture of it until after then, ie on the Carrier. Trouble with all this supposition is that we need someone who was there to give the definitive answer...
Evan.

Evan,

In what place Dennis lived when he did make his Taurus for Africa?

In what place Ed lived when he did make his Taurus for Africa?

About my plane Evan, look at the wing, no straight TE and look at the horizontal tailplane, silk covered!
So, what you wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>>> >
The model you are drawing was built sometime after Africa and before the 1963 World Champs, not a lot of time, hence the rather rough build of the original
>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>>> >
Is not true.
When it is finished, I will make pictures of it in the same position as the Taurus on the right side of the crate because I do want to show you that this Taurus fuse is the fuse in the crate but also the fuselage of auction 2 and of the carrier.
And a point that's more important, it will fly much better than my other Taurus, less resistant, lighter and better shape, think about the story of the backside with inverted flight.
I will experience the difference between the Top Flite cargo Taurus and the Ed Kazmirski contest Taurus I think.
But that's the interesting part of our hobby.

Evan, I often did use the expression "As old as the way to Rome".
You may axplain the Romans what you mean with :"hence the rather rough build of the original"!


Cees

Cees

Changing the subject back to the engines, it is VERY obvious that Ed eventually put a big "honkin'" engine on the Taurus 2 as better engines became available. Also, he needed weight in the nose when the wing was moved forward,and because this wing is the heaviest, more pulling power for a heavier plane. This is no doubt a .60-size powerplant. How sure are you that it is a "FOX .59" in the picture my father took? Was your decision on the FOX made because it was the only .60 available at the time, or because of the way it looks in the picture? There was also a Supertigre .56 available about that time....could it possibly be that?

I am not disputing your decision, I'm just curious about how SURE you are of the FOX being the engine in that picture? What was your thinking process for calling it a FOX?

Thanks
Duane

Duane
I did speak with the Italian (Turin, ST 56 Stunt) people, They want have nothing to do with you anymore after the abuse of Evan. Even it was a Super Tigre you will not get them anymore.
They said that you must have seen their Italian buildings (picture 1, Rome) in the past. They were more imposing and nicer to see than the German (Picture 2, Berlin).

BTW in which city Dennis lived before they went to Africa?

Cees

Evan,
I already give a reply to Duane,

The Italian people are not happy the way you look to remains. They say that you do not know anything about old stuff.
I thought that the problem was solved but, this morning I did get a message from our visitors from England.

They want to know where you're talking about and what you think about there Stonehenge.
When you say that Stonehenge wasn't as beautiful as the old buildings from Rome, they want to visit you and learn you al lesson!

So, Evan, be careful, with anything you write, we have a lot of visitors.


Cees

Evan,

The Egyptian people asked me to let you know they are also thinking about this the same like the people from England so.

Repeat Evan! >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>
hence the rather rough build of the original
>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>>> >>

Let him try to do it himself they say to me!
And, in wich country he lives? New Zealand? That explains a lot!(LOL)

Where did Dennis Hunt live the period he did built his Taurus for Africa? Because I am already in Egypt.

Cees