Redesign and reconstruction of the Oldest Taurus on Earth
12-01-2008 | 11:16 AM
#126
Thread Starter
RE: Redesign and reconstruction of the Oldest Taurus on Earth
Gents,
Sometimes I think back, the post 23 of WEDJ:
This build is going to be a book….
How did Ed came to the Taurus design, some background information.
1 Orion , winner in Bern 1960.
2 “Flop” (See Ed Kazmirski’s Taurus Thread),
3 Oldest Taurus On Earth (under reconstruction) in the crate of Africa.
4 Top Flite Taurus (and MAN Taurus, and RCM & E) we all know now.
Picture 1 Orion taildragger, mounting position of the wing in the fuselage 2,39 degrees positive. Maximum angle of attack of the wing during takeoff and landing 12 degrees.
Picture 2 detail of the calculation of the mounting angle of the wing of the Orion in the fuselage.
Picture 3 “Flop”, probably a taildragger wing incidence of the Orion on a tricycle undercarriage, no details known.
Picture 4 Orion converted to a tricycle plane and why Ed didn’t use this configuration, most important to know!!!
The incidence of the wing of 2,39 degrees makes it possible to lift off with an angle of attack of 17 degrees and that’s too much. The result is, the plane would fly with a “tail up” position during normal flight, so “drag” but also risk of stall after liftoff and bad “inverted flight” capabilities.
Understand that the NACA 2419 is an asymmetrical airfoil so the effective angle of attack is much more than 17 degrees.
So he did built the Oldest Taurus on Earth with the correct incidence of wing to try out the real tricycle configuration. See right side fuselage in the crate of Africa in the older posts.
This Taurus did Ed show the first configuration of strip ailerons and tricycle, only details to change, rudder hanging line and the fuselage a little longer . (BTW angle of the wing is 0 degrees now!!)
Picture 5 The result is the Taurus of Top Flite, MAN, RCM & E.
I reconstruct the Oldest Taurus on Earth with the incidences we see in the Taurus we all know now because these are correct for a tricycle pattern plane Ed did learn.
Maximum angle of attack of the wing during takeoff and landing, 13 degrees. Nearly the same as the Orion with 12 degrees.
Picture 6 the both wings in one picture, above the Orion, beneath Taurus.
Picture 7 under contruction, the result of my thinking! Am I the only one?
Ed did know the differences between the old Taildragger and the modern tricycle plane.
That was the reason he could make the Taurus a success and that is I want to let you know before it's all forgotten.
Cees
Sometimes I think back, the post 23 of WEDJ:
This build is going to be a book….
How did Ed came to the Taurus design, some background information.
1 Orion , winner in Bern 1960.
2 “Flop” (See Ed Kazmirski’s Taurus Thread),
3 Oldest Taurus On Earth (under reconstruction) in the crate of Africa.
4 Top Flite Taurus (and MAN Taurus, and RCM & E) we all know now.
Picture 1 Orion taildragger, mounting position of the wing in the fuselage 2,39 degrees positive. Maximum angle of attack of the wing during takeoff and landing 12 degrees.
Picture 2 detail of the calculation of the mounting angle of the wing of the Orion in the fuselage.
Picture 3 “Flop”, probably a taildragger wing incidence of the Orion on a tricycle undercarriage, no details known.
Picture 4 Orion converted to a tricycle plane and why Ed didn’t use this configuration, most important to know!!!
The incidence of the wing of 2,39 degrees makes it possible to lift off with an angle of attack of 17 degrees and that’s too much. The result is, the plane would fly with a “tail up” position during normal flight, so “drag” but also risk of stall after liftoff and bad “inverted flight” capabilities.
Understand that the NACA 2419 is an asymmetrical airfoil so the effective angle of attack is much more than 17 degrees.
So he did built the Oldest Taurus on Earth with the correct incidence of wing to try out the real tricycle configuration. See right side fuselage in the crate of Africa in the older posts.
This Taurus did Ed show the first configuration of strip ailerons and tricycle, only details to change, rudder hanging line and the fuselage a little longer . (BTW angle of the wing is 0 degrees now!!)
Picture 5 The result is the Taurus of Top Flite, MAN, RCM & E.
I reconstruct the Oldest Taurus on Earth with the incidences we see in the Taurus we all know now because these are correct for a tricycle pattern plane Ed did learn.
Maximum angle of attack of the wing during takeoff and landing, 13 degrees. Nearly the same as the Orion with 12 degrees.
Picture 6 the both wings in one picture, above the Orion, beneath Taurus.
Picture 7 under contruction, the result of my thinking! Am I the only one?
Ed did know the differences between the old Taildragger and the modern tricycle plane.
That was the reason he could make the Taurus a success and that is I want to let you know before it's all forgotten.
Cees
12-01-2008 | 03:31 PM
#127
Thread Starter
RE: Redesign and reconstruction of the Oldest Taurus on Earth
Gents,
I did make one extra picture to make the story complete.
An impression when the Orion flies inverted with the same speed as during normal flight showed in the picture (and of course also in the outside looping!).
The high angle of attack is the result of the asymmetrical airfoil and the incidence of 2,39 degrees of the mounting of the wing in the fuse..
This high angle the plane needs to get the proper lift to fly!
It is clear that the fuselage of this 100 % taildragger generates a lot of drag in this position.(Fusedragger?)
Ed did see it right, time for the Taurus to try to keep his position as the champion in the ranking of the pilots.
Cees
I did make one extra picture to make the story complete.
An impression when the Orion flies inverted with the same speed as during normal flight showed in the picture (and of course also in the outside looping!).
The high angle of attack is the result of the asymmetrical airfoil and the incidence of 2,39 degrees of the mounting of the wing in the fuse..
This high angle the plane needs to get the proper lift to fly!
It is clear that the fuselage of this 100 % taildragger generates a lot of drag in this position.(Fusedragger?)
Ed did see it right, time for the Taurus to try to keep his position as the champion in the ranking of the pilots.
Cees
12-03-2008 | 07:49 PM
#128
Thread Starter
RE: Redesign and reconstruction of the Oldest Taurus on Earth
Ray,
Your answer, the post in the thread of the P39 King Cobra. Taildragger versus tricycle plane.(Sterling P-63 King Cobra restoration)
After my explanation of the difference between the taildragger and the tricycleplane in the thread of the P 39 King Cobra you did show us the drawings of the Yak 18 PM and the Yak 18 PS, see picture 1.
You do not see any difference?
To be honest I also not.
But, can I be wrong? Is there no difference between the tail dragger and the Tricycle plane?
To answer the question I did look for another picture. Picture 2
What’s that?
A Taurus(Primus) as a taildragger.
In the period of the Taurus there were 17 Taurusses in Belgium on the world champs 1963.
17 Taurusses of the 39 members and none as a taildragger!
The Taurus is a tricycleplane, and designed as a tricycle plane.
So of course, you can find a Taurus converted to a taildragger but that’s a loser, will never win the game!
In 1960 the Orion was a taildragger and Ed was worldchampion with that plane in Switserland.
Many people did fly the Orion and they did convert them in the tricycle (picture3).
I did count 0 of Orions as a tricycle plane in Belgium! And of course Ed did not use this, he did know the differences!
The Orion was a champion as a taildragger, but you cannot convert this plane to a tricycle. That’s a loser but will sometimes win the game.
Your YAK 18.
The Yak-18P first tricycle plane was present at First World Aerobatic Championship, Bratislava in 1960.
Your YAK 18 PM is the tricycle plane from 1966 the absolute winner in Moscow.
And the Yak 18 PS is taildragger, so a loser. And what did we say about them!
You cannot convert a tricycle in a taildragger so never will win the game.
So all the losers exists, (Piper PA12) of course, but look to the differences when you see a tricycle and the taildragger of (nearly) the same type and try to find out what’s the winner.
And that YAK 50? That’s a taildragger of course!
To help you, look at the tailcone!
I do make several picture combinations of the Yak 18 PM and Yak 50 but also from the Taurus and the Orion.
When somebody wants to see them, let me know and I make a extra post of them!
With this pictures I can show you the way Ed did look to the Yaks, because he did!
Cees
Your answer, the post in the thread of the P39 King Cobra. Taildragger versus tricycle plane.(Sterling P-63 King Cobra restoration)
After my explanation of the difference between the taildragger and the tricycleplane in the thread of the P 39 King Cobra you did show us the drawings of the Yak 18 PM and the Yak 18 PS, see picture 1.
ORIGINAL: RFJ
They didn't make many changes here.
Ray
So, not only Ed Kazmirski did know, also the Russian of course, the difference between the taildragger and the tricycle!.
Ray
To be honest I also not.
But, can I be wrong? Is there no difference between the tail dragger and the Tricycle plane?
To answer the question I did look for another picture. Picture 2
What’s that?
A Taurus(Primus) as a taildragger.
In the period of the Taurus there were 17 Taurusses in Belgium on the world champs 1963.
17 Taurusses of the 39 members and none as a taildragger!
The Taurus is a tricycleplane, and designed as a tricycle plane.
So of course, you can find a Taurus converted to a taildragger but that’s a loser, will never win the game!
In 1960 the Orion was a taildragger and Ed was worldchampion with that plane in Switserland.
Many people did fly the Orion and they did convert them in the tricycle (picture3).
I did count 0 of Orions as a tricycle plane in Belgium! And of course Ed did not use this, he did know the differences!
The Orion was a champion as a taildragger, but you cannot convert this plane to a tricycle. That’s a loser but will sometimes win the game.
Your YAK 18.
The Yak-18P first tricycle plane was present at First World Aerobatic Championship, Bratislava in 1960.
Your YAK 18 PM is the tricycle plane from 1966 the absolute winner in Moscow.
And the Yak 18 PS is taildragger, so a loser. And what did we say about them!
You cannot convert a tricycle in a taildragger so never will win the game.
So all the losers exists, (Piper PA12) of course, but look to the differences when you see a tricycle and the taildragger of (nearly) the same type and try to find out what’s the winner.
And that YAK 50? That’s a taildragger of course!
To help you, look at the tailcone!
I do make several picture combinations of the Yak 18 PM and Yak 50 but also from the Taurus and the Orion.
When somebody wants to see them, let me know and I make a extra post of them!
With this pictures I can show you the way Ed did look to the Yaks, because he did!
Cees
12-04-2008 | 09:59 AM
#129
Thread Starter
RE: Redesign and reconstruction of the Oldest Taurus on Earth
Gents,
When we look to the details of the Orion and the Taurus.
As an Acrobat plane of course!
Normal horizontal flight the differences are few, only the high tail and stab position of the Orion is characteristic, see picture 1. My own Orion, characteristic for an “old” taildragger.
Inverted, it is another story.
There are several remarkable points to notice when we look to these two planes: See picture 2
The fuselage of the Taurus has a much more horizontal position when flying inverted. Reason, the wingincidence in the fuselage is 0 degrees instead of about the 2,39 degrees of the Orion. As example, inverted flying with the same angle of attack of the wings.
Profit 1 , less drag of the bottomside of the tail cone. Look to the angle of it in the flight path direction, 10 degrees, Orion 16.
Profit 2, high efficiency of the elevator, just like normal flight also inverted, in the slibstream of the prop. Orion (nearly) not.
Profit 3, topside of the turtledeck nearly horizontal, (green line in orange ellipse), so less drag.
Profit 4 less cross sectional area of the fuselage in the slibstream of the propeller.
Profit 5: The Taurus has less surface of the fin and rudder in the slibstream of the propeller than in horizontal flight position. That’s a big problem but, the Orion fin is complete out of the slibstream .(see green dash)
The surface of the fin of the Taurus is extended to enlarge it in the slibstream! See picture 2, extra fin surface with blue dashes above the red triangle!
Engine, torque and propwash.
Just like starting a taildragger (ATTITUDE?) from the ground, a remarkable difference in inverted flight is the angle/incidence? of the propeller in the flight direction.
For both planes the angle of the thrustline is the same +8 degrees, with the same angle of attack of the wings.
Result is the difference in angles of attack of the blades in up and down going direction of the rotation. See detail on the picture 2 right top corner!
Difference:
Down going blade 20 degrees. Blue.
Up going blade 4 degrees. Red.
Result is a left curve on the vertical axis/axle.
(we look to the same cross section in both blades, somewere between root and tip)
So. Did Ed give the engine a sidethrust in right direction of the engine in normal flight direction , inverted he would like left direction (in normal flight direction) side thrust for this reason!
The other problem is the way the slibstream hits the fin and rudder. Because the less surface in the slibstream, inverted, the less sidethrust Ed need during inverted flight for this reason.
Ed did extend the fin surface of the Taurus to reduce this problem? (triangle with blue dashes) Maybe!
Ed himself did reduce the sidethrust of his “particular Taurus” for about a half for these both reasons? I think!!!.(See picture 3)
The Orion hasn’t any surface of fin and/or rudder in the slibstream during inverted flight, so doesn’t need any sidethrust inverted for this reason! Of course still for the other reasons we all know.
Conclusion.
The Taurus is a much better plane for acrobat flying than the Orion. Problem still is the changing of the amount of surface of fin and rudder in normal and inverted flight.
If Ed wanted more surface it maybe was outside the slibstream in BOTH situations, normal and inverted, to reduce the change relative.
Looking to the plane, this configuration, Ed did all what was possible I think.
Looking to the reconstruction of the Oldest Taurus on Earth! The fin and rudder of the first Taurus of the Crate did already had the traditional "triangle" shape (picture 4). Less surface of rudder and fin that aren't in the propwash inverted flying.
To research in the future for the Wester Taurus. How big can be the white triangle with the questionmark, the only part of the rudder of the fuselage in the crate that isn't visible on the picture I have!
When you read my posts and try to follow my way of thinking then maybe you also can set the next step of Ed! (Not the Simla, I am thinking about!)
The Taurus as a pusher, the same area of the tailfeathers always in front of the propeller,no matter how you are flying normal or inverted! (picture 5)
Ed was a top-designer!
Cees
When we look to the details of the Orion and the Taurus.
As an Acrobat plane of course!
Normal horizontal flight the differences are few, only the high tail and stab position of the Orion is characteristic, see picture 1. My own Orion, characteristic for an “old” taildragger.
Inverted, it is another story.
There are several remarkable points to notice when we look to these two planes: See picture 2
The fuselage of the Taurus has a much more horizontal position when flying inverted. Reason, the wingincidence in the fuselage is 0 degrees instead of about the 2,39 degrees of the Orion. As example, inverted flying with the same angle of attack of the wings.
Profit 1 , less drag of the bottomside of the tail cone. Look to the angle of it in the flight path direction, 10 degrees, Orion 16.
Profit 2, high efficiency of the elevator, just like normal flight also inverted, in the slibstream of the prop. Orion (nearly) not.
Profit 3, topside of the turtledeck nearly horizontal, (green line in orange ellipse), so less drag.
Profit 4 less cross sectional area of the fuselage in the slibstream of the propeller.
Profit 5: The Taurus has less surface of the fin and rudder in the slibstream of the propeller than in horizontal flight position. That’s a big problem but, the Orion fin is complete out of the slibstream .(see green dash)
The surface of the fin of the Taurus is extended to enlarge it in the slibstream! See picture 2, extra fin surface with blue dashes above the red triangle!
Engine, torque and propwash.
Just like starting a taildragger (ATTITUDE?) from the ground, a remarkable difference in inverted flight is the angle/incidence? of the propeller in the flight direction.
For both planes the angle of the thrustline is the same +8 degrees, with the same angle of attack of the wings.
Result is the difference in angles of attack of the blades in up and down going direction of the rotation. See detail on the picture 2 right top corner!
Difference:
Down going blade 20 degrees. Blue.
Up going blade 4 degrees. Red.
Result is a left curve on the vertical axis/axle.
(we look to the same cross section in both blades, somewere between root and tip)
So. Did Ed give the engine a sidethrust in right direction of the engine in normal flight direction , inverted he would like left direction (in normal flight direction) side thrust for this reason!
The other problem is the way the slibstream hits the fin and rudder. Because the less surface in the slibstream, inverted, the less sidethrust Ed need during inverted flight for this reason.
Ed did extend the fin surface of the Taurus to reduce this problem? (triangle with blue dashes) Maybe!
Ed himself did reduce the sidethrust of his “particular Taurus” for about a half for these both reasons? I think!!!.(See picture 3)
The Orion hasn’t any surface of fin and/or rudder in the slibstream during inverted flight, so doesn’t need any sidethrust inverted for this reason! Of course still for the other reasons we all know.
Conclusion.
The Taurus is a much better plane for acrobat flying than the Orion. Problem still is the changing of the amount of surface of fin and rudder in normal and inverted flight.
If Ed wanted more surface it maybe was outside the slibstream in BOTH situations, normal and inverted, to reduce the change relative.
Looking to the plane, this configuration, Ed did all what was possible I think.
Looking to the reconstruction of the Oldest Taurus on Earth! The fin and rudder of the first Taurus of the Crate did already had the traditional "triangle" shape (picture 4). Less surface of rudder and fin that aren't in the propwash inverted flying.
To research in the future for the Wester Taurus. How big can be the white triangle with the questionmark, the only part of the rudder of the fuselage in the crate that isn't visible on the picture I have!
When you read my posts and try to follow my way of thinking then maybe you also can set the next step of Ed! (Not the Simla, I am thinking about!)
The Taurus as a pusher, the same area of the tailfeathers always in front of the propeller,no matter how you are flying normal or inverted! (picture 5)
Ed was a top-designer!
Cees
12-06-2008 | 02:54 AM
#130
Thread Starter
RE: Redesign and reconstruction of the Oldest Taurus on Earth
Gents,
I am redesign and preparing the landing gear.
I can see the main gear in the crate and measure the legs, but I cannot see the nose gear.
But, the story about the taildragger and the tricycle will be clear I think?!?!?!?!?!
And it is not “only the fuselage deck angles are different.” we did see!
Before using the theory:
A double check is maybe interesting, reading the papers!
Did Ed really know the important facts of the tricycle or did he look to others?
First Zel Ritchie, another very good pilot of this period
See picture 1, Zel isn’t a designer, I see in one view of the plane! Do you?
So Zel did make a tricycle of a taildragger. Not knowing on that moment the differences just like many others? (I THINK)
Second picture, text from Ed, tricycle function in contest. Yes Ed did know!
Third picture, the Orion converted in a tricycle Ed did never use of course.!The Orion will be the loser in multi acrobat contest.
Fourth picture, the answer from Ed. The Taurus, also for many other reasons.
Fifth picture, everybody did know Ed was ”the designer” in that period, so we can thrust what he knew.(Not what is written by others!)
Making the gear now, by redesign just Ed did.
Cees
I am redesign and preparing the landing gear.
I can see the main gear in the crate and measure the legs, but I cannot see the nose gear.
But, the story about the taildragger and the tricycle will be clear I think?!?!?!?!?!
And it is not “only the fuselage deck angles are different.” we did see!
Before using the theory:
A double check is maybe interesting, reading the papers!
Did Ed really know the important facts of the tricycle or did he look to others?
First Zel Ritchie, another very good pilot of this period
See picture 1, Zel isn’t a designer, I see in one view of the plane! Do you?
So Zel did make a tricycle of a taildragger. Not knowing on that moment the differences just like many others? (I THINK)
Second picture, text from Ed, tricycle function in contest. Yes Ed did know!
Third picture, the Orion converted in a tricycle Ed did never use of course.!The Orion will be the loser in multi acrobat contest.
Fourth picture, the answer from Ed. The Taurus, also for many other reasons.
Fifth picture, everybody did know Ed was ”the designer” in that period, so we can thrust what he knew.(Not what is written by others!)
Making the gear now, by redesign just Ed did.
Cees
12-07-2008 | 06:21 AM
#131
Thread Starter
RE: Redesign and reconstruction of the Oldest Taurus on Earth
Gents
When we manipulate our ” plane with “Paint ””, we can look at our “plane with paint ” before we anoint our “plane with paint”.
This is an impression of me the way I think Ed did see his first Taurus.
To have the exhaust on the right side of the plane I did make a mirror image.
So you have to “mirror image the propeller in your mind”
The second picture is from Ed himself I did get from Noblechuck.
Ed also did like working with pictures! He was a famous photographer.
Cees
When we manipulate our ” plane with “Paint ””, we can look at our “plane with paint ” before we anoint our “plane with paint”.
This is an impression of me the way I think Ed did see his first Taurus.
To have the exhaust on the right side of the plane I did make a mirror image.
So you have to “mirror image the propeller in your mind”
The second picture is from Ed himself I did get from Noblechuck.
Ed also did like working with pictures! He was a famous photographer.
Cees
12-08-2008 | 05:19 PM
#132
Thread Starter
RE: Redesign and reconstruction of the Oldest Taurus on Earth
Gents,
The adaptor plate for the Webra 6.5 cc/0.40
Material 6 mm aluminum, the shim will be 2 mm to adjust the downthrust so, total 8 mm
To make the shim I maybe use, glasfiber/epoxy plate.
Cees
The adaptor plate for the Webra 6.5 cc/0.40
Material 6 mm aluminum, the shim will be 2 mm to adjust the downthrust so, total 8 mm
To make the shim I maybe use, glasfiber/epoxy plate.
Cees
12-11-2008 | 03:37 PM
#133
Thread Starter
RE: Redesign and reconstruction of the Oldest Taurus on Earth
Gents,
The wings,
Nearly ready for sanding and silk and dope finishing.
The second picture of the bottomside with the rails for the gear and the mounting plate for the pitottube.
First the plate will covered with the silk, later when using the datalogger I can remover the silk and mount the pitottube.
Still to do, finishing the wingtips, and building the stripailerons the way I did make the elevator in the past, see post 51 and 52.
Cees
The wings,
Nearly ready for sanding and silk and dope finishing.
The second picture of the bottomside with the rails for the gear and the mounting plate for the pitottube.
First the plate will covered with the silk, later when using the datalogger I can remover the silk and mount the pitottube.
Still to do, finishing the wingtips, and building the stripailerons the way I did make the elevator in the past, see post 51 and 52.
Cees
12-12-2008 | 08:19 AM
#135
Thread Starter
RE: Redesign and reconstruction of the Oldest Taurus on Earth
WEDJ
Some pictures the way I sheet the spars and ribs when sheer webs are already between the main spars.
First glue the two wings together (dihedral /anhedral) and making the intern sheets to join the sheeting of the wings in the centre. (picture 1)
Next, first bottom and then top of the sheeting of the TE with extra straight spars to get them straight.(picture 2)
After this you only still can warp the wing, not bent the TE. All ribs are “in line”
Then top of the D tube, wing is still flexible.
You can see if the top of the sheeting does have a good fit with the ribs. (picture 3)
Next most important is the bottom because then the D tube is fixed.
Only during gluing the bottom of the D tube the wing is fixed on the table with spars under the TE and 5 kg steel (11 pound) on top. This is the only moment you can make the ”wash out”. (picture 4 and 5)
Only check to do is, have the wingtip ribs ,left wing and right wing, both the same angle! I can see that only from the backside on a distance of a few meters.
I always make the width of the sheets a few mm less than the distance between backside spar and front side LE to get the good binding of the sheeting on the ribs. With a few tapes I fix the position of the sheeting on the ribs.(picture 6)
Little dents I repair with a few drops of water and an flat iron. (Yes, hot of course!)
Cees
Some pictures the way I sheet the spars and ribs when sheer webs are already between the main spars.
First glue the two wings together (dihedral /anhedral) and making the intern sheets to join the sheeting of the wings in the centre. (picture 1)
Next, first bottom and then top of the sheeting of the TE with extra straight spars to get them straight.(picture 2)
After this you only still can warp the wing, not bent the TE. All ribs are “in line”
Then top of the D tube, wing is still flexible.
You can see if the top of the sheeting does have a good fit with the ribs. (picture 3)
Next most important is the bottom because then the D tube is fixed.
Only during gluing the bottom of the D tube the wing is fixed on the table with spars under the TE and 5 kg steel (11 pound) on top. This is the only moment you can make the ”wash out”. (picture 4 and 5)
Only check to do is, have the wingtip ribs ,left wing and right wing, both the same angle! I can see that only from the backside on a distance of a few meters.
I always make the width of the sheets a few mm less than the distance between backside spar and front side LE to get the good binding of the sheeting on the ribs. With a few tapes I fix the position of the sheeting on the ribs.(picture 6)
Little dents I repair with a few drops of water and an flat iron. (Yes, hot of course!)
Cees
12-14-2008 | 05:05 AM
#136
Thread Starter
RE: Redesign and reconstruction of the Oldest Taurus on Earth
Gents,
I'would like to have the complete article from "Our Mr. K goes to Africa", the article from the trip of Ed to Africa in april 1962.
Article is from Model Airplane News December 1962.
Maybe we already did see it in the thread "Ed Kazmirski's Taurus" but I couldn't find it there.
I only have a front page as shown in the picture I did find in post 462 (RFJ).
BTW, Ray when you read this message, congrats, you did post you 500-th post in RCU, 12-12-08!
Who can help me?
Cees
I'would like to have the complete article from "Our Mr. K goes to Africa", the article from the trip of Ed to Africa in april 1962.
Article is from Model Airplane News December 1962.
Maybe we already did see it in the thread "Ed Kazmirski's Taurus" but I couldn't find it there.
I only have a front page as shown in the picture I did find in post 462 (RFJ).
BTW, Ray when you read this message, congrats, you did post you 500-th post in RCU, 12-12-08!
Who can help me?
Cees
12-14-2008 | 06:57 AM
#137
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Belfast, IRELAND
RE: Redesign and reconstruction of the Oldest Taurus on Earth
Cees,
Complete article sent as PDF e-mail attachment. Hope you received it OK.
500 posts[X(] I really should spend less time posting and more time building but I do try to keep my posts short. Interesting thread - look forward to seeing the completed Taurus.
Ray
Complete article sent as PDF e-mail attachment. Hope you received it OK.
500 posts[X(] I really should spend less time posting and more time building but I do try to keep my posts short. Interesting thread - look forward to seeing the completed Taurus.
Ray
12-14-2008 | 07:31 AM
#138
Thread Starter
RE: Redesign and reconstruction of the Oldest Taurus on Earth
Hello Ray,
I do receive the post,
The article and is very interesting, I will read it this evening.
Thank you
Cees
I do receive the post,
The article and is very interesting, I will read it this evening.
Thank you
Cees
12-14-2008 | 10:05 AM
#139
Thread Starter
RE: Redesign and reconstruction of the Oldest Taurus on Earth
Ray,
The article does give some additional information, weight of the Taurus! for example but also about the history.
I did complete the wingsaddle and re-adjust the dihedral of the ming.
Now I do make the landing gear and some pitures of that.
I use an old gear to put the plane on legs and adjust the right ATTITUDE.
Because the wings are not covered yet it is easy to measure the high of the maingear.
Of course Hanna Poes did want on the picture with her new friend. See did ask me to show you this picture.
Cees
The article does give some additional information, weight of the Taurus! for example but also about the history.
I did complete the wingsaddle and re-adjust the dihedral of the ming.
Now I do make the landing gear and some pitures of that.
I use an old gear to put the plane on legs and adjust the right ATTITUDE.
Because the wings are not covered yet it is easy to measure the high of the maingear.
Of course Hanna Poes did want on the picture with her new friend. See did ask me to show you this picture.
Cees
12-15-2008 | 10:30 AM
#140
Thread Starter
RE: Redesign and reconstruction of the Oldest Taurus on Earth
Gents
A short note about the weight of the plane I will calculate in the future.
In my first post I did write that Ed probably didn’t use the Oldest Taurus on Earth in Africa.
On the picture of the crate we only see the antenna of the receiver in the TF Taurus on the left side.
I show you a fragment of the story in Africa I did read yesterday. See picture below.
So, in at least one situation, on an altitude of 5000 feet, Ed did use the light Taurus and total weight was 5 ¾ lbs.
So total weight was: 5 3/4 lbs = 2600 gram
I will use a fuel tank of 250 cc (8 oz) = 200 gram
So the empty weight of the plane has to be 2400 gram = 5 lbs 5 ounce (5,3 lbs)
Even if my plane is lighter I will use ballast (extra weight) to get the same weight and compare the way of flying.
Cees
A short note about the weight of the plane I will calculate in the future.
In my first post I did write that Ed probably didn’t use the Oldest Taurus on Earth in Africa.
ORIGINAL: Taurus Flyer
Gents,
Many of you do have read that I am reconstructing the Taurus that’s visible in the crate that was used by Ed during the trip to Africa in April 1962 together with the other standard Taurus.
On that moment already it was the “back up” for Ed, no equipment was in the fuse, no antenna.
Cees
Gents,
Many of you do have read that I am reconstructing the Taurus that’s visible in the crate that was used by Ed during the trip to Africa in April 1962 together with the other standard Taurus.
On that moment already it was the “back up” for Ed, no equipment was in the fuse, no antenna.
Cees
I show you a fragment of the story in Africa I did read yesterday. See picture below.
So, in at least one situation, on an altitude of 5000 feet, Ed did use the light Taurus and total weight was 5 ¾ lbs.
So total weight was: 5 3/4 lbs = 2600 gram
I will use a fuel tank of 250 cc (8 oz) = 200 gram
So the empty weight of the plane has to be 2400 gram = 5 lbs 5 ounce (5,3 lbs)
Even if my plane is lighter I will use ballast (extra weight) to get the same weight and compare the way of flying.
Cees
12-16-2008 | 04:28 AM
#141
Thread Starter
RE: Redesign and reconstruction of the Oldest Taurus on Earth
Gents
In Africa Ed did fly with the Taurus on an altitude of 5000 feet we could read in the article in MAN.
That’s not a problem for me, in the Netherlands , highest mountain is 322 m (1000 feet) lowest point about -7 m, but!
Temperature differences and moisture that’s can be a problem so!
Most important is the pushrod of the elevator to check.
I did mount a micrometer device in the fuselage to measure the differences in length of the pushrod.
Mounting was inside the house, and a temperature of 20 degrees C .
Outside it is 0 degrees and misty.
You see the pictures, first inside, then a picture of the measurement and then after 2 hours outside .
Difference of the pushrod in length is less than 0,01 mm. (0.00039370078740157485")
Both the pushrod and the fuselage are mostly balsa over the effective lengths. The pianowire of the pushrod doesn’t change much when the temperature changes 20 degrees (delta is 36 degrees F)
So we could expected this but now we know for sure!
Cees
In Africa Ed did fly with the Taurus on an altitude of 5000 feet we could read in the article in MAN.
That’s not a problem for me, in the Netherlands , highest mountain is 322 m (1000 feet) lowest point about -7 m, but!
Temperature differences and moisture that’s can be a problem so!
Most important is the pushrod of the elevator to check.
I did mount a micrometer device in the fuselage to measure the differences in length of the pushrod.
Mounting was inside the house, and a temperature of 20 degrees C .
Outside it is 0 degrees and misty.
You see the pictures, first inside, then a picture of the measurement and then after 2 hours outside .
Difference of the pushrod in length is less than 0,01 mm. (0.00039370078740157485")
Both the pushrod and the fuselage are mostly balsa over the effective lengths. The pianowire of the pushrod doesn’t change much when the temperature changes 20 degrees (delta is 36 degrees F)
So we could expected this but now we know for sure!
Cees
12-16-2008 | 01:18 PM
#142
Thread Starter
RE: Redesign and reconstruction of the Oldest Taurus on Earth
Gents,
A sideview of the Wester Taurus, standing on his own legs. (grown up).
Maybe interesting to see the picture Ed did make in the past with the carrier wing.
Next action for me is making the canopy dimensions according the crate picture and cockpit details.
On the picture the canopy is still much too high!
The post about the canopy will be very important!
The ailerons are finished, just I did make the elevator. The ailerons are prepared for 3 threated hangings each aileron just like the wings in the crate.
Of course most important still is, making the cratepicture again with the Wester Taurus in the future and see.
Cees
A sideview of the Wester Taurus, standing on his own legs. (grown up).
Maybe interesting to see the picture Ed did make in the past with the carrier wing.
Next action for me is making the canopy dimensions according the crate picture and cockpit details.
On the picture the canopy is still much too high!
The post about the canopy will be very important!
The ailerons are finished, just I did make the elevator. The ailerons are prepared for 3 threated hangings each aileron just like the wings in the crate.
Of course most important still is, making the cratepicture again with the Wester Taurus in the future and see.
Cees
12-17-2008 | 03:09 PM
#143
Thread Starter
RE: Redesign and reconstruction of the Oldest Taurus on Earth
Gents,
Some canopy history.
When I was making the canopy (4 times) I did had a problem. I did not get the right dimensions the way I did want them. Also there were some question marks about the exact position.
Continuing with the fuse and wings I did thought,” I will see in the future!”
Yesterday was the future!
Picture 1 part of the crate picture. When looking to the canopy you see that the front side of the canopy does nearly have the same direction of the direction the picture is taken, the angle is 38 degrees I did measured during the laser beaming.
Picture 2 part of the drawing I use. Here you see the laser beam I did draw on the plan, also 38 degrees
Picture 3 the personal picture of Ed with the Taurus the way he did use this on the carrier deck.
I did draw the angle of 38 degrees again. It’s right; this is the direction of the front side.
The canopy also has a high of 28 % of total high of the fuse in front of the wing.
Look that nearly only the head of the pilot is visible. The canopy is very flat.
But now the fuse after the ST56 was mounted in the nose, picture 4 and 5.
The picture of Ed, during a contest meeting.
Angle of the front side of the canopy is now about 45 degrees, high of the canopy 33 %
The high of the canopy is much more to place the pilot I it, we also see a big part of the body of the pilot.
It is clear that Ed did replace the canopy. Probably to get room in the fuse.
The old African bush and carrier deck pilot is retired (reed-tired), lives now with Duane in Asheville (NC).
The pilot with a new proportional education did get a modern position “on” the fuse. Maybe so he did could mount a bigger tank?
So, I redesign the Oldest Taurus on Earth the way it was in the early days, the way I show you.
I do make the canopy the way we see it on the crate picture but also on the personal black and white picture and still was used on the carrier deck. For the canopy I will not use modern pictures anymore.
Cees
Some canopy history.
When I was making the canopy (4 times) I did had a problem. I did not get the right dimensions the way I did want them. Also there were some question marks about the exact position.
Continuing with the fuse and wings I did thought,” I will see in the future!”
Yesterday was the future!
Picture 1 part of the crate picture. When looking to the canopy you see that the front side of the canopy does nearly have the same direction of the direction the picture is taken, the angle is 38 degrees I did measured during the laser beaming.
Picture 2 part of the drawing I use. Here you see the laser beam I did draw on the plan, also 38 degrees
Picture 3 the personal picture of Ed with the Taurus the way he did use this on the carrier deck.
I did draw the angle of 38 degrees again. It’s right; this is the direction of the front side.
The canopy also has a high of 28 % of total high of the fuse in front of the wing.
Look that nearly only the head of the pilot is visible. The canopy is very flat.
But now the fuse after the ST56 was mounted in the nose, picture 4 and 5.
The picture of Ed, during a contest meeting.
Angle of the front side of the canopy is now about 45 degrees, high of the canopy 33 %
The high of the canopy is much more to place the pilot I it, we also see a big part of the body of the pilot.
It is clear that Ed did replace the canopy. Probably to get room in the fuse.
The old African bush and carrier deck pilot is retired (reed-tired), lives now with Duane in Asheville (NC).
The pilot with a new proportional education did get a modern position “on” the fuse. Maybe so he did could mount a bigger tank?
So, I redesign the Oldest Taurus on Earth the way it was in the early days, the way I show you.
I do make the canopy the way we see it on the crate picture but also on the personal black and white picture and still was used on the carrier deck. For the canopy I will not use modern pictures anymore.
Cees
12-17-2008 | 04:41 PM
#144
My Feedback: (4)
RE: Redesign and reconstruction of the Oldest Taurus on Earth
ORIGINAL: Taurus Flyer
Gents,
Some canopy history.
When I was making the canopy (4 times) I did had a problem. I did not get the right dimensions the way I did want them. Also there were some question marks about the exact position.
Continuing with the fuse and wings I did thought,” I will see in the future!”
Yesterday was the future!
Picture 1 part of the crate picture. When looking to the canopy you see that the front side of the canopy does nearly have the same direction of the direction the picture is taken, the angle is 38 degrees I did measured during the laser beaming.
Picture 2 part of the drawing I use. Here you see the laser beam I did draw on the plan, also 38 degrees
Picture 3 the personal picture of Ed with the Taurus the way he did use this on the carrier deck.
I did draw the angle of 38 degrees again. It’s right; this is the direction of the front side.
The canopy also has a high of 28 % of total high of the fuse in front of the wing.
Look that nearly only the head of the pilot is visible. The canopy is very flat.
But now the fuse after the ST56 was mounted in the nose, picture 4 and 5.
The picture of Ed, during a contest meeting.
Angle of the front side of the canopy is now about 45 degrees, high of the canopy 33 %
The high of the canopy is much more to place the pilot I it, we also see a big part of the body of the pilot.
It is clear that Ed did replace the canopy. Probably to get room in the fuse.
The old African bush and carrier deck pilot is retired (reed-tired), lives now with Duane in Asheville (NC).
The pilot with a new proportional education did get a modern position “on” the fuse. Maybe so he did could mount a bigger tank?
So, I redesign the Oldest Taurus on Earth the way it was in the early days, the way I show you.
I do make the canopy the way we see it on the crate picture but also on the personal black and white picture and still was used on the carrier deck. For the canopy I will not use modern pictures anymore.
Cees
Gents,
Some canopy history.
When I was making the canopy (4 times) I did had a problem. I did not get the right dimensions the way I did want them. Also there were some question marks about the exact position.
Continuing with the fuse and wings I did thought,” I will see in the future!”
Yesterday was the future!
Picture 1 part of the crate picture. When looking to the canopy you see that the front side of the canopy does nearly have the same direction of the direction the picture is taken, the angle is 38 degrees I did measured during the laser beaming.
Picture 2 part of the drawing I use. Here you see the laser beam I did draw on the plan, also 38 degrees
Picture 3 the personal picture of Ed with the Taurus the way he did use this on the carrier deck.
I did draw the angle of 38 degrees again. It’s right; this is the direction of the front side.
The canopy also has a high of 28 % of total high of the fuse in front of the wing.
Look that nearly only the head of the pilot is visible. The canopy is very flat.
But now the fuse after the ST56 was mounted in the nose, picture 4 and 5.
The picture of Ed, during a contest meeting.
Angle of the front side of the canopy is now about 45 degrees, high of the canopy 33 %
The high of the canopy is much more to place the pilot I it, we also see a big part of the body of the pilot.
It is clear that Ed did replace the canopy. Probably to get room in the fuse.
The old African bush and carrier deck pilot is retired (reed-tired), lives now with Duane in Asheville (NC).
The pilot with a new proportional education did get a modern position “on” the fuse. Maybe so he did could mount a bigger tank?
So, I redesign the Oldest Taurus on Earth the way it was in the early days, the way I show you.
I do make the canopy the way we see it on the crate picture but also on the personal black and white picture and still was used on the carrier deck. For the canopy I will not use modern pictures anymore.
Cees
If you want, why don't I take measurements of the canopy of the Taurus II, (which I believe you feel IS the original fuselage of the Wester Taurus).....that will give you an exact measurement.
On the other hand, from the other thread it was proven that the pilot figure in the crate picture, (PICTURE #2) is NOT the same pilot figure in the PRESENT Taurus II, (picture on the left). If you look carefully, you can see the difference in the way the pilot figures were painted. That means that canopy may not be the same one in the crate photo either, but there is no evidence to indicate the Taurus II canopy is not the original. The plane in the carrier picture is the same one I now have. It is the B&W picture on the left (where the plane is viewed from ground level from the side) above. That picture was taken during the very short span of time when Ed used the thick "carrier wing".
BTW-Cees. I just received a ST .56 for the plane, and it fits on the motor rails perfectly in the "slot" between the inside fuselage sides that frames the engine. It is as if the plane was made for, (or built around), a ST .56, but we know that's not true because the blind nuts fit a Veco .45. Ed designed two metal clips to hold the side engine lugs.
Duane
12-17-2008 | 07:05 PM
#145
Thread Starter
RE: Redesign and reconstruction of the Oldest Taurus on Earth
ORIGINAL: kingaltair
Cees
If you want, why don't I take measurements of the canopy of the Taurus II, (which I believe you feel IS the original fuselage of the Wester Taurus).....that will give you an exact measurement.
On the other hand, from the other thread it was proven that the pilot figure in the crate picture, (PICTURE #2) is NOT the same pilot figure in the PRESENT Taurus II, (picture on the left). If you look carefully, you can see the difference in the way the pilot figures were painted. That means that canopy may not be the same one in the crate photo either, but there is no evidence to indicate the Taurus II canopy is not the original. The plane in the carrier picture is the same one I now have. It is the B&W picture on the left (where the plane is viewed from ground level from the side) above. That picture was taken during the very short span of time when Ed used the thick "carrier wing".
BTW-Cees. I just received a ST .56 for the plane, and it fits on the motor rails perfectly in the "slot" between the inside fuselage sides that frames the engine. It is as if the plane was made for, (or built around), a ST .56, but we know that's not true because the blind nuts fit a Veco .45. Ed designed two metal clips to hold the side engine lugs.
Duane
Cees
If you want, why don't I take measurements of the canopy of the Taurus II, (which I believe you feel IS the original fuselage of the Wester Taurus).....that will give you an exact measurement.
On the other hand, from the other thread it was proven that the pilot figure in the crate picture, (PICTURE #2) is NOT the same pilot figure in the PRESENT Taurus II, (picture on the left). If you look carefully, you can see the difference in the way the pilot figures were painted. That means that canopy may not be the same one in the crate photo either, but there is no evidence to indicate the Taurus II canopy is not the original. The plane in the carrier picture is the same one I now have. It is the B&W picture on the left (where the plane is viewed from ground level from the side) above. That picture was taken during the very short span of time when Ed used the thick "carrier wing".
BTW-Cees. I just received a ST .56 for the plane, and it fits on the motor rails perfectly in the "slot" between the inside fuselage sides that frames the engine. It is as if the plane was made for, (or built around), a ST .56, but we know that's not true because the blind nuts fit a Veco .45. Ed designed two metal clips to hold the side engine lugs.
Duane
Duane, Ed did change the canopy after the period of the carrier and the thick wing that was my message, so it is what you write, I still think the centre section of the fuselage of Taurus II is from the Oldest taurus on Earth, but not the canopy. So I cannot use measurements of the canopy of Taurus II. That was why I did write: "For the canopy I will not use modern pictures anymore."
About the pilots.
The original pilot (your picture #2) of the crate Ed did remove with the canopy after the carrier period. This pilot did use space in the fuselage we can see on the crate picture.
The new pilot was later mounted "on" the fuselage in the new and much higher canopy.
About the engine.
The crate picture shows us the K & B Greenhead and the position about 8 mm higher in the fuselage. So that is the reason I use the adaptor plate now.
Ed did use an adjustable side thrust we can read so the ST wasn't original used for design of this fuselage. You cannot change the sidethrust of the ST and that is an important fact of adjustment of the contest plane.
I show you that also Ralph Brooke did use such a plate. He did call it a mount plate.
Cees
12-18-2008 | 10:29 AM
#146
My Feedback: (4)
RE: Redesign and reconstruction of the Oldest Taurus on Earth
ORIGINAL: kingaltair
Cees
If you want, why don't I take measurements of the canopy of the Taurus II, (which I believe you feel IS the original fuselage of the Wester Taurus).....that will give you an exact measurement.
On the other hand, from the other thread it was proven that the pilot figure in the crate picture, (PICTURE #2) is NOT the same pilot figure in the PRESENT Taurus II, (picture on the left). If you look carefully, you can see the difference in the way the pilot figures were painted. That means that canopy may not be the same one in the crate photo either, but there is no evidence to indicate the Taurus II canopy is not the original. The plane in the carrier picture is the same one I now have. It is the B&W picture on the left (where the plane is viewed from ground level from the side) above. That picture was taken during the very short span of time when Ed used the thick "carrier wing".
BTW-Cees. I just received a ST .56 for the plane, and it fits on the motor rails perfectly in the "slot" between the inside fuselage sides that frames the engine. It is as if the plane was made for, (or built around), a ST .56, but we know that's not true because the blind nuts fit a Veco .45. Ed designed two metal clips to hold the side engine lugs.
Duane
Cees
If you want, why don't I take measurements of the canopy of the Taurus II, (which I believe you feel IS the original fuselage of the Wester Taurus).....that will give you an exact measurement.
On the other hand, from the other thread it was proven that the pilot figure in the crate picture, (PICTURE #2) is NOT the same pilot figure in the PRESENT Taurus II, (picture on the left). If you look carefully, you can see the difference in the way the pilot figures were painted. That means that canopy may not be the same one in the crate photo either, but there is no evidence to indicate the Taurus II canopy is not the original. The plane in the carrier picture is the same one I now have. It is the B&W picture on the left (where the plane is viewed from ground level from the side) above. That picture was taken during the very short span of time when Ed used the thick "carrier wing".
BTW-Cees. I just received a ST .56 for the plane, and it fits on the motor rails perfectly in the "slot" between the inside fuselage sides that frames the engine. It is as if the plane was made for, (or built around), a ST .56, but we know that's not true because the blind nuts fit a Veco .45. Ed designed two metal clips to hold the side engine lugs.
Duane
Duane, Ed did change the canopy after the period of the carrier and the thick wing that was my message, so it is what you write, I still think the centre section of the fuselage of Taurus II is from the Oldest taurus on Earth, but not the canopy. So I cannot use measurements of the canopy of Taurus II. That was why I did write: "For the canopy I will not use modern pictures anymore."
About the pilots.
The original pilot (your picture #2) of the crate Ed did remove with the canopy after the carrier period. This pilot did use space in the fuselage we can see on the crate picture.
The new pilot was later mounted "on" the fuselage in the new and much higher canopy.
About the engine.
The crate picture shows us the K & B Greenhead and the position about 8 mm higher in the fuselage. So that is the reason I use the adaptor plate now.
Ed did use an adjustable side thrust we can read so the ST wasn't original used for design of this fuselage. You cannot change the sidethrust of the ST....
Cees
[/quote]
Cees-The B&W picture of the "Carrier-winged" Taurus II shows the plane completed and ready for flight. We determined and proved for sure in the other thread that this was Ed's back-up plane for the 1963 "worlds", and it flew on proportional equipment. Due to windy conditions during the "worlds", Ed chose to fly his other Taurus, (the first one from the ebay auction that had reeds for radio).
The question I have is "why would Ed change canopies and pilot figures after the carrier wing periodthere isn't a reason for it"? Though you are obviously confident in your laser-beam measurements, I am not as confident in measurements made off small photographs, sometimes taken at undetermined angles such as the "crate photo". The angles may "play tricks" with the way things appear. The color photo you have marked at 45 degrees, I would have drawn at a lower angle. Drawing an angle on a continuously curving surface such as the front of a canopy is not precise, but is subjective, and may be influenced somewhat by what you are trying to prove.
I will admit that the canopy from my Dad's color picture seems to appear higher, but is the difference in appearance obvious enough to PROVE the canopies are different, or could it be just the photo or difference in camera angle? There is no trace when closely looking at the fuselage, that there had ever been another canopy on it in the past. There are also no cuts in the fuselage top block where a pilot may have entered the fuse in the past.
You may be right..just pointing out other possibilites.
Duane
12-19-2008 | 01:09 PM
#147
Thread Starter
RE: Redesign and reconstruction of the Oldest Taurus on Earth
Gents,
Picture 1 and 2.
The new pilot, with an “Old School” education. Reeds.
I carved it from wood and painted the pilot in a new and more colorful outfit.(red shirt)
It cannot be a problem because the crate picture is black and white.
Picture 3 and 4 the retired pilot we think it was the bush pilot in the oldest Taurus on Earth.
Duane, a short note about the canopies.
The black and white picture shows us the Taurus with the thick wings with straight TE.
We know of these wings that it has mounting holes for the reeds servo but also (newer?) rails to mount a proportional servo.
So the picture can be from the early reeds period.
For the redesign and reconstruction I primary use the high definition crate picture and only additional information from other pictures. See also my post 1 and 12.
Cees
Picture 1 and 2.
The new pilot, with an “Old School” education. Reeds.
I carved it from wood and painted the pilot in a new and more colorful outfit.(red shirt)
It cannot be a problem because the crate picture is black and white.
Picture 3 and 4 the retired pilot we think it was the bush pilot in the oldest Taurus on Earth.
Duane, a short note about the canopies.
The black and white picture shows us the Taurus with the thick wings with straight TE.
We know of these wings that it has mounting holes for the reeds servo but also (newer?) rails to mount a proportional servo.
So the picture can be from the early reeds period.
For the redesign and reconstruction I primary use the high definition crate picture and only additional information from other pictures. See also my post 1 and 12.
Cees
12-19-2008 | 04:59 PM
#148
Thread Starter
RE: Redesign and reconstruction of the Oldest Taurus on Earth
Gents,
First attempt to learn the script/writing Ed did use.
Also the remarks on the characters of the first print-out. Picture 3
Procecution? Prosecution!
Cees
First attempt to learn the script/writing Ed did use.
Also the remarks on the characters of the first print-out. Picture 3
Procecution? Prosecution!
Cees
12-20-2008 | 04:05 PM
#149
Thread Starter
RE: Redesign and reconstruction of the Oldest Taurus on Earth
Gents,
When I take the picture in the future to compare with the crate picture , I want to compare every detail.
This is the reason I spend most of the time by comparing detail pictures during the building.
I only can compare detail pictures when I make them from the original distance but it’s too dark for that in the evening. I do not have enough light for that.
I can show you the process by taking a picture from shorter distance as I show you in picture 1.
The office of the pilot. Picture 1
Important fact of this part of design.
The outside contour of the canopy on the top of the fuselage. Step by step I reconstruct the original outside by comparing the picture and make little changes.
The position of the label in the cockpit and positions of other details
The position of the pilot. The pilot is “on” the top of the fuselage so I did place him a little afterward to get the head on the right position.
Interesting is the marker for the dowel, the triangle piece of wood with the black dash. Compare this with picture 2.
The two green and red long dashes are directions of view, directions of the picture is taken. The green line looks all right, the red line is complete out of the right direction because this picture is taken from a too short distance.
Picture 2 is the part of the crate picture with the pilot’s office.
Picture 3 a “bad quality” picture, to check if the canopy can fit in the contour I redesign. This is no problem. Look at the green line of the contour of the canopy and compare this with picture 4. I experienced that the canopy is tilt backwards, the result is the front is around 38 degrees but also the green line curves to the top of the fuselage in a smooth line.
The green line shows us also that the round shape of the top of the fuselage is all right.
Picture 4 we did see before, to compare with picture 3!
So, for who was interested.
After I redesigned all the details I did show you compare them with the daylight pictures and complete the drawings I will continue with the wings. Covering with silk and dope.
Cees
When I take the picture in the future to compare with the crate picture , I want to compare every detail.
This is the reason I spend most of the time by comparing detail pictures during the building.
I only can compare detail pictures when I make them from the original distance but it’s too dark for that in the evening. I do not have enough light for that.
I can show you the process by taking a picture from shorter distance as I show you in picture 1.
The office of the pilot. Picture 1
Important fact of this part of design.
The outside contour of the canopy on the top of the fuselage. Step by step I reconstruct the original outside by comparing the picture and make little changes.
The position of the label in the cockpit and positions of other details
The position of the pilot. The pilot is “on” the top of the fuselage so I did place him a little afterward to get the head on the right position.
Interesting is the marker for the dowel, the triangle piece of wood with the black dash. Compare this with picture 2.
The two green and red long dashes are directions of view, directions of the picture is taken. The green line looks all right, the red line is complete out of the right direction because this picture is taken from a too short distance.
Picture 2 is the part of the crate picture with the pilot’s office.
Picture 3 a “bad quality” picture, to check if the canopy can fit in the contour I redesign. This is no problem. Look at the green line of the contour of the canopy and compare this with picture 4. I experienced that the canopy is tilt backwards, the result is the front is around 38 degrees but also the green line curves to the top of the fuselage in a smooth line.
The green line shows us also that the round shape of the top of the fuselage is all right.
Picture 4 we did see before, to compare with picture 3!
So, for who was interested.
After I redesigned all the details I did show you compare them with the daylight pictures and complete the drawings I will continue with the wings. Covering with silk and dope.
Cees
12-22-2008 | 01:47 PM
#150
My Feedback: (4)
RE: Redesign and reconstruction of the Oldest Taurus on Earth
Cees
Remarkable reproduction of the pilot figure and the address sticker under the canopy. Congratulations!!
I would imagine that al the address stickers were made at the same time, and stored by Ed for use when needed. I would expect that they all look identical, and that the one on the VR/CS Taurus, and maybe even the pre-Taurus prototype looks the same. I will agree that the sticker under the canopy in the "Crate Photo" is probably the same style form, even though it is nearly impossible to read anything from it.
Question: The B&W photo on the right above, (#4) is from the Carrier Wing era. My feeling is that the canopy on that picture is the same canopy the plane has NOW...is that what you're saying? Ed didn't change the canopy once the Tarus II was finished, and it was finished in the early picture showing the Carrier Wing. You can see it is more elongated than the one from the crate, which looks more like the one you made and is less elongated. I would say that the canopy from the auction picture is the same canopy in the early Carrier Wing B&W picture, (#4) above. If the canopy was changed, it would have been changed sometime after the Africa trip when the Crate Photo was taken, (April 1962), and prior to the completion of the Taurus II before the summer of 1963 when that B&W side view was taken of the Carrier Wing model shown above. Are we in agreement about this? I will include a picture of the side view of the Taurus II compared to the B&W.
Remarkable reproduction of the pilot figure and the address sticker under the canopy. Congratulations!!
I would imagine that al the address stickers were made at the same time, and stored by Ed for use when needed. I would expect that they all look identical, and that the one on the VR/CS Taurus, and maybe even the pre-Taurus prototype looks the same. I will agree that the sticker under the canopy in the "Crate Photo" is probably the same style form, even though it is nearly impossible to read anything from it.Question: The B&W photo on the right above, (#4) is from the Carrier Wing era. My feeling is that the canopy on that picture is the same canopy the plane has NOW...is that what you're saying? Ed didn't change the canopy once the Tarus II was finished, and it was finished in the early picture showing the Carrier Wing. You can see it is more elongated than the one from the crate, which looks more like the one you made and is less elongated. I would say that the canopy from the auction picture is the same canopy in the early Carrier Wing B&W picture, (#4) above. If the canopy was changed, it would have been changed sometime after the Africa trip when the Crate Photo was taken, (April 1962), and prior to the completion of the Taurus II before the summer of 1963 when that B&W side view was taken of the Carrier Wing model shown above. Are we in agreement about this? I will include a picture of the side view of the Taurus II compared to the B&W.
