UStik

Duane, now I'm confused. [] I thought we all were in agreement that the fuselage shown in the crate is not the carrier fuse. Once you showed us the pilot you have now it was clear that it's the pilot sitting in the crate fuselage. Only when Cees showed us the crate picture in high resolution/magnification (like again in his post above) we were able see the unique paint on the helmet. Above all, we see a round cutout in the fuselage top - the cockpit - with the pilot sunk in it. From your picture we know that he is sitting on a flat plate once glued in the fuse. I can't believe that Ed later made the fuse thinner and covered the round hole to gain room in the fuse. Instead I think that the carrier fuse was built in the first place with the different pilot sitting on the top and the crate fuse is lost.

Taurus Flyer

Duane,

My sticker is a first attempt more to follow about that in the future.

Your question.

I do reconstruct the Taurus of the crate that is my project, not debate about your Taurus.

I was drawing the side view of the canopy to archive so I did put the canopy of your Taurus of auction II beneath it so you can compare. I see too much differences to use the side view of the Taurus II for my reconstruction.
Ed did not only change the canopy , he also did change the radio I did write before.

I also see that the rudder linking was on the right side of the fuselage on the B & W picture.
In the Taurus II it is on the left side, see red circles.

Does Dennis hunt has additional pictures Duane? Maybe your fuselage isn’t the fuselage of the B & W picture?

Ustik
Look for a picture of the other Taurus of the crate, the fuse on the left side. You can see how the pilot was mounted and Ed did not use this method later. (room consuming!)
We all know for a long time!!!!!!!
See also post 143: 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?


Cees

UStik

That's all what I just wrote, did you read it at all? The question was if you as well will sink the pilot or if you will place it on the fuse top as on T2. I don't think you'll have the tank below the pilot.

Taurus Flyer

Ustick,

Of course I did read it all, do take a look at the thread of Ed Kazmirski's Taurus. Page 25 post 616, 28 - 8 - 2008, there it did start!
About the position of the pilot?
I am thinking about that! See the picture. For the reconstruction of the crate picture I do not have to mount the pilot "in" the fuselage and I want to use the room for the datalogger. I am thinking of marking the round hole in the top of the fuse for the copy of the crate picture to show.

And Ustick,
"I don't think you'll have the tank below the pilot." is typical a question of a person who does not design airplanes!
I did tell you in the past you have to know the differenence between the stab of a Taurus and the stab of an Orion, the same is about the mounting of the fueltank!.
And when you want to know, "ask", but more important "believe"!



Cees

UStik

Whom should I believe, you? Do you mind? And just in case you missed it, I asked if you read my post.

Ben Lanterman

Hi,

Today is my birthday and I decided to treat myself to a read of the oldest Taurus, etc. It was the hot airplane when I was in college and of great interest since I was majoring in Aeronautical Engineering. I had read Ed's articles on the Orion and the Taurus and found them very fascinating. I went on to enjoy a job as an aero engineer in the aerodynamics department doing stability and control work at McDonnell Douglas until I decided to take early retirement to spend more time on RC models. I have been designing and flying RC for about 45 years - a long time now that I think about it.

But having read through a whole lot of commenting of various things here I have to comment on one thing myself.

Taurus Flyer - your comments about landing gear placement making a difference in how an airplane flies are wrong. Even more using the Orion and Taurus as proof of your proposition is invalid.

Why you ask? There are too many variables when comparing the two designs. Not only is the landing gear style different but the wing/tail incidence angles relative to the fuselage are different.

Aside for a small bit of drag moment the landing gear type makes no difference because the airplane would fly the same if the landing gear was removed in either case. What does make a difference in how the airplanes fly (as in the Orion compared to the Taurus compared to any airplane) are the angles of the wing and tail relative to the fuselage and the airfoils used. Indeed the angles of the Orion along with it's wing section make it much less desirable to perform outside maneuvers than the Taurus. The outside maneuver might be just as round in space but it would look totally awkward because of the fuselage angle and not get high scores from the judges.

Ed surely recognized this weakness in the Orion and modified the wing and tail angles in the Taurus for the maneuvers that he needed to perform. Even so the Taurus would not look quite as good doing an outside loop compared to an inside loop because of the wing section. The tail would look as if it were dragging a bit. If he had a requirement for more outside maneuvers he might have gone to a fully symmetrical wing airfoil.

If he had no need for ground maneuvers or touch and goes he well may have left the Taurus a tail dragger to eliminate one source of drag and complexity. But since he needed a reliable ground handling airplane and one that could do a smooth tough and go without ground looping, the trike landing gear was the only way to go. Blending the wing/tail angles and trike gear around a fuselage design that became the Taurus was not too difficult for someone of Ed's modeling and flying skills.

The Orion can easily be made into a trike gear airplane, just adjust the gear length to let the wing incidence relative to the ground sit at a slightly negative angle. It will give the airplane a tail high look when sitting on the ground but that doesn't matter. Under power on the takeoff run the tail can lift the nose and put the wing at the exact angle of attack, at the same airspeed, that the tail dragger would have had at liftoff.

As far as the "flop" is concerned the tricycle landing gear had nothing to do with it's flying qualities. But there are several things aerodynamically that seem to have been a trial that didn't work. Take a look at the tail. The aerodynamic characteristics of the heavily swept forward hinge lines may have produced some fairly undesirable characteristics that influenced Ed pretty badly since he chose not to use that feature in any design after! As a matter of fact he went in the totally different direction with the tails. The horizontal tail on the Taurus has a zero swept hinge line which is fine but the swept vertical tail/rudder isn't too great aerodynamically. A move conventional tail would be better.

Take the "flop" and add a longer tail moment arm, add what today would be considered a conventional vertical and horizontal tail arrangement, and it would be a fine flying airplane. But no - the trike gear had nothing to do with it flopping.

Good luck on your build,

Ben Lanterman

Taurus Flyer

Ben, congratulations with you birthday.
This subject I did start in the Ed Kazmirski Taurus. Somewhere around the post 424 on page 17 date 8 – 8 – 2008, to explain the design of the Taurus.
I repeat my post 452.page 19

'

So Ben, what you write in your post is nearly the same I started in the past I think and is the reason Ed did have to do something to stay on the top in Belgium.

I repeat the most important part of your post:
>>
The outside maneuver might be just as round in space but it would look totally awkward because of the fuselage angle and not get high scores from the judges.
>>

So Ed never could win with the Orion, he did know, You know and I know.
(Do not forget the loose of speed, 0,45 engine 69 " span!)



Only there was one very big question for me, nobody else did ask. That is the reason I did note in this post:

(LET ME EXPLAIN LATER WHY I THINK THE TAURUSSUS OF ED AND LES ARE THE TOP FOR THAT MOMENT}

And that's the reason I did start this thread. Read post 1 again.

Cees


The picture is from the old post and I did not have better info to make it better!

Taurus Flyer

Ustik,

My project is reconstructing the plane in the crate, the Oldest taurus on Earth.
So, I read your posts, but I think you have to post them in the other thread.

I give you examples the way I try to believe!
.
Start with the way I do, I think the (design of) the fuselage of aution 2 is older than the TF Taurus.’

So if you think Ed did make the fuselage of auction 2 thinner, than you ask me because Ed never did make a fuse thinner I believe, not even from the unfinished!

“Cees why do you think they make the fuselage of the TF Taurus wider than the Oldest Taurus on Earth?”

I would tell you then:
“Ustik, that was because the Oldest Taurus on Earth was the original contest plane from Ed and a lot of people would have problems with the equipment to built in the small fuselage like this(relay instead of the relay less of Ed) I believe”

Other example:

“Cees why do you think Ed did mount the Pilot on the top of the fuselage later?”

I would have tell you:
“Ustik, original we see the K & B Greenhead in the nose of the Oldest Taurus on Earth, (we even see a throttle pushrod in the fuse of Taurus II which looks like from the K & B Greenhead) but look at the picture of the Taurus II on the situation now, it seems me that Ed could not remove THIS tank anymore with the dowel in THAT place when the pilot was still there! Remember the Orion had a hatch.” (see picture 1 and 2)
“So maybe this was the reason to mount the pilot “on” the fuselage” instead of the proportional radio, I do not know. I believe the proportional was the first reason and later with the Supertigere 56 on the nose with the big tank the second . But it is not important to me, because I know Ed did change the position of the dowel of the LE when he used the thick carrier wing.”
See my study pictures of the bottom of the plane, picture 3 and 4

Cees

UStik

Cees, obviously you are again the only one not really understanding the meaning of my remark. Maybe you're too busy patronizing. But who do you think you are? My father? Please stop it. And if you feel perfect try walking over water.

RFJ

OK Guys, this is starting to get a bit unpleasant[]

Cees. Can I refer you to post #577 in the "Ed Kazmurski's Taurus" thread. Please read carefully and try to understand what I am trying to say.

Happy Christmas

Ray

Taurus Flyer

Ustik

Your post 151, Confused? Did you forget the past?


I did look back in the posts in the Ed Kazmirski’s Taurus. All from the date 28 - 8 - 2008!

Page 25 post 616 the picture 1 and 2 were in this post of Noblechuck.
Your reaction after seeing the pilotpictures I show you again below: Ouch, that hurts? 24 hours?

Ed Kazmirski’s Taurus, Post 619, page 25
Ed Kazmirski Post 619, page 25
Picture 3 was in this post.

That was the reason that I say it was all old information and I did not give response in the first place.
So Ustik, it has nothing to do with being perfect or trying to walk over water. Just do not forget the facts!
Read post 1 of my thread. I stop arguing and built the Taurus of the crate!.

Cees

Ben Lanterman

Taurus Flyer - I think the problem is a matter of language and emphasis.

It is several aerodynamic steps to go from the Orion to the Taurus. The evolution is obvious and effect the way the Taurus flies better than the Orion.

Once the aerodynamic machine that was either the Orion or the Taurus was designed, then came the lowly task of putting a landing gear system on the airplane. The landing gear did not drive the design of the airplane. As a matter of fact you can remove the landing gears and the airplanes still fly the same.

This is what I mean by where you need to put your emphasis - in your presentations put emphasis on the airplanes and angles (as you have) - but - you don't have to mention landing gears at all. If you go back and take the writing you have presented and remove any comments about landing gear, but keep the comments about wing angles relative to the fuselage, it will read nicely.

Ben

Taurus Flyer

Ben,


I did of course read your message a lot of times.
I understand your explantion and I did tell always that I do talk about the "old" taildraggers.
The meaning of my explanation just has to do with the angles of wings and stab relative to the fuselage as you write but..
Because of lack of power you mostly see a positive angle of wing and stab in the old taildraggers to get the plane from the ground. Also the Orion has a positieve angle of the wing but also the stab, we can read in the description in MAN. Also the tailcone of the Orion is typical for the taildragger to get enough AOA of the wing during take of.
So the design of the old taildragger is a combination of the handling on the ground and in the air and in that way of thinking I see the differences in the design of the old taildragger and the tricycle.
These days you do not see the differences anymore because the modern taildragger has a lot of power( and sometimes salso flaps) to get the plane from the ground even with a symmetrical airfoil..

Hope you can do something with this message and let me know what you think about it..

Ben, the pictures,

To show you what I mean with the tailcone, I did a little fotoshopping with Douglasses, they give me an old DC4 to transfer from tricycle to taildragger!
Picture 1 taildragger with taildragger tailcone, the DC3.
picture 2 tricycleplane with taildragger undercarriage, the DC4 I did transfer, no place for the tailwheel, sorry!
picture 3 just Douglas did in the past with the DC3 I did give the tailcone of the DC4 an angle of 3 degrees by fotoshopping and there you have the taildragger with still very little space for the tailwheel so 4 degrees would have been better.
look to the red line in pictures the DC3 is designed as a taildragger, the DC4 is designed as a tricycle plane.
BTW the DC 3 does have flaps and you still can see the characteristics of the taildragger.

So if you write:
As a matter of fact you can remove the landing gears and the airplanes still fly the same.
Then I will say:
And I can tell you in 9 of the 10 situations of that plane was designed as an old taildragger or as a tricycleplane!

Cees

pimmnz

But Cees, given that both Taurus and Orion use a cambered section and have similar areas and weights, then the AOA of the wings at take off will be, near as dammit, the same. One of them lifts the back wheel to take off, the other one lifts the front. As Ben says, the placement and number of wheels affects the aerodynamics not one whit. The designers perception of what looks nice has much more effect on aeroplane things than wheels. Trike DC-3's and tailwheel DC-4's will still take off with the wings at the same AOA too, regardless of where the wheels are. There are much more practical reasons for where the wheels are put, and fashion too plays a part, but aerodynamics is not a consideration.

Taurus Flyer

Pimmnz,
You are right about the AOA at take off. But that is not my message of course, you know that!
It is the difference in the tailcone what I show you.
The angle of the tailcone is the bottleneck, one of the drag generating factors of the OLD taildragger.

If you give the taildragger DC3 the straight angle of the tailcone like the DC4, then we would never now that plane because they could not have these used to fly off from short runways, the AOA will be reduced in that situation!!!!! And starting in extreme conditions and high loading is a strong point of the DC3.

And the DC4?

If you give this plane a angled tailcone of a taildragger just I show in picture 3, then it was done with the long range because the tailcone would have too much drag.

Do remember that these planes have flaps also and the DC4 4 engines. (better would be compare a Piper Cub and Piper Colt, but the pictures I did make for Ben)

Let me be simple gents!

When you do not know these differences between a taildragger and a tricycleplane even after so many posts then I also do not have to continue this thread because the Oldest Taurus on Earth has anything to do with the drag of the fuselage.

What I tell is nothing new for an airplane designer, look at the sailplanes/gliders.
I understand it is new for you all because you normally cannot read this in the magazines.
In the thread of Ed Kazmirski's Taurus I did show you also Ed did mix up his planes, nobody did believe that either! You could not read this in any magazine. And let me tell you, there is much more to tell about that!


So, pictures of the Oldest Taurus on Earth, with the right canopy.
Try to think about DRAG of this contest Taurus and not that it maybe has to do something with “The designers perception of what looks nice!”
Have attention for the shape of the bottom and the top of the fuse in picture 4 when compare these around the centre- and thrust line of the engine!

The canopy is not fixed on the fuse, that I will do later.


Cees

Taurus Flyer

pimmnz,

To show you I do not have problems with the calculating AOA's I show you an airplane, designed by somebody who did not know the part of aerodynamics I do talk about I THINK.

The Perigee,

Let me tell you first that the combination of plane and pilot is the key to succeed! Tom Brett must have been a very good pilot!


The picture 1.
The Perigee is an airplane designed in the period after the Orion.
Tom Brett did not want the Perigee looks like the Orion! He succeeded!

First disadvantage:
The Perigee is tricycle plane but has a tailcone like a taildragger (12 degrees see picture 1) so more drag and more materials than needed, (tail heavy, were did I read that?).

Second
During takeoff and landing at an AOA of 12 degrees the stab is in the slip stream of the wings, so it can drop out of the air, (where did I read that?).

Third
Because of the high positioned fin, the rudder forces are far above the centre line of the fuse. This generates a roll moment contra with the rudderaction.(I tell you)

Fourth
Inverted flight will be a very big problem with the stab in a very low position far below the propeller trust line (I show you in picture 2)

Fifth
The possible AOA is 20 degrees during takeoff because of the wrong tailcone, so when you make a mistake the plane stalls direct after takeoff. (see picture 1)

Six
During inverted flight the bottom of the fuselage has a AOA of 18 degrees, so extreme drag (picture2).

Seven
During the inverted flight the fin and rudder are nearly complete out of the slipstream of the propeller (picture 2).

Eight
Tom did try to give the Perigee an anti Orion look by swept forward wing and swept back stab to the get a "long" tailmonent!
So there is the reason for the last disadvantage, now you need more finsurface to get the right direction stability.(did somebody talk about tailheavy before?)

So,

I did read that you must be a very good pilot to fly with this "Hot Ship".
More important to me is, tell me one reason to built this plane others than "The designers perception of what looks nice".

This was the reason that, when you show me a fuselage without the undercarriage, in 9 of the 10 situations I can tell you or it was of of a taildragger or a tricycle plane.
This is the tenth situation I did think about making that post in the past!

Let it be clear!! It is not to destroy the idea that the Perigee is a very good airplane!! It is only to show you the way I look.

For example,
My Orion does fly without any problems hundreds of flights with a retractable landing gear and a wing loading of 32,5 ozs/sq.ft from a grass strip.
My Orion has the dimensions of the Taurus and does fly with a 30 years old Enya 60 4C engine.
My Taurus I can fly, start and land with real bad crosswinds.

That all would not be possible with the Perigee.
When lowering the speed I SEE that the Perigee can fall of the air, any moment! And that would be for me the only moment I MAYBE use the word "dammit" pimmnz.
That is I want you to learn because I didn't read this all in the thread's about the Perigee.
What I do read, that you all see what is happening with the Perigee, I only want to tell you why.

Cees

Ben Lanterman

Taurus Flyer,

I agree about the Perigee - I had one years ago. I followed Tom's designs through the magazines and I have seen a tendency of him to want the lines of his airplanes to be rather futuristic. This isn't bad, it just doesn't make the best flying airplane. And indeed he must have been quite a pilot to win as he did.

However what you say about it has nothing to do with the question of whether or not the landing gear affects the way an airplane flies. What affects the way an airplane flies is - as you noted - just the aerodynamic characteristics of the airframe - fuselage design, wing and tail placement and angles, etc.

The landing gear type simply does not affect the way an airplane flies. It may affect the way the designer is thinking about his airplane and it certainly will change the ground handling. As far as takeoff goes I generally let the airplane get significantly above minimum takeoff speed before I lift it off no matter what the landing gear configuration is.

Merry Christmas,

Ben Lanterman

WEDJ

Cees,

I can attest that my Perigee flies inverted with almost no down trim. The tail does look a bit "droopy" however. Come spring I will take more photos. In level upright flight, the stab is at a negative incidence of several degrees, not zero as you have drawn. It is a lifting tail, to counteract the wing incidence. See this video:

http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=PNvYBzAOgQ4

As for stalling, I can slow it down to a walk without problems. Spin entry is almost at a dead stop.

As for the rudder, because of the extreme hinge angle, it pitches to the canopy in Knife Edge. I have not noticed any adverse roll coupling. In fact, in normal flight, it will turn in the direction of the rudder, just like a 3-channel setup.

Regarding it being a "hot" ship to fly, I beg to differ. I believe its reputation was caused by some people accidentally building in a wash-in at the wingtips, due to the grain direction of the sheeting. I mentioned and measured this in my build thread.

Hope this helps,
Nic

Taurus Flyer

Gents,

Designing an airplane to win the world champs has nothing to do with:


Ben you write:
Take the "flop" and add a longer tail moment arm, add what today would be considered a conventional vertical and horizontal tail arrangement, and it would be a fine flying airplane. But no - the trike gear had nothing to do with it flopping.
(And about the Orion) The outside maneuver might be just as round in space but it would look totally awkward because of the fuselage angle and not get high scores from the judges

About the Flop, we are not designing a “fine flying airplane” Ben, the high thrustline of the engine you forget!!
About the Orion, Ed did want the highest scores also when the judges want to see outside manouvers!!


pimmnz you write:
The designers perception of what looks nice has much more effect on aeroplane things than wheels

We are not designing an airplane “what looks nice” pimmnz, we want to win the world champs and nothing else.

Nic you write:
As for the rudder, because of the extreme hinge angle, it pitches to the canopy in Knife Edge. I have not noticed any adverse roll coupling. In fact, in normal flight, it will turn in the direction of the rudder, just like a 3-channel setup.

The adverse roll coupling probably is compensated by the dihedral of the wing, so drag, but, we are not designing a airplane that behaves like a plane with a 3-channel set-up in normal flight and pitches to the canopy in knife edge. Nic We are searching the plane of Ed, to win, not to hear why not! Also when the judges want to see a "slow roll"



I tell you, this thread is the description of the Oldest Taurus on Earth.
The contest plane of Ed Kazmirski of 1961 and the plane I reconstruct of the 3 Mb picture of the crate that Ed did use in april 1962
The Oldest taurus on Earth will do the Top Flite Taurus look like a Cargo Lifter.
The DESIGN, Ed did use for several years by updating the plane many times.

In my explanation of the Perigee I show you all the extremes I see in this plane, every detail I show you could be a reason we did not see this plane in Belgium. Nice weather it was in England during the world champs when Tom became the world champion think about that!
Go and see the movie from the champs in Belgium! Wind , wind, wind.

Hope you enjoy, more to come. And about the wheels there will be a moment you all understand, believe me.
Think about that Piper Cup used in the mountains, and why they did not use the Colt. No flaps please.

Merry Christmas.

Cees

pimmnz

And a Merry Christmas to all our readers!
I must take Cees to task, all this 'Angle of the tailcone' stuff is simply rubbish, the Douglas designers knew about cruise attitude and designed for minimal drag in that condition, wheels notwithstanding. As for decrying the dear old Perigee, well, I have owned and flown one for 10 years and a better aerobatic aircraft would be difficult to find for 'forty' size powerplants. Tom knew what he was doing and the aesthetics of his designs (Nimbus and Perigee, I have one of each) came before aerodynamics. He may have been a good pilot, but he was behind Kaz and Dunham at the time. Perigee is a very good aeroplane and very quick compared to Orion and Taurus, so flight drag is low. The glide is superb, power off you can still complete the pattern so it is, despite the apparent high tail, a slippery beast. We may never agree, but it's good to see other ideas.
Peace and goodwill to all,
Evan, WB #12.

Taurus Flyer

pimmnz,

Disadvantage number 9 "a better aerobatic aircraft would be difficult to find for 'forty' size powerplants"! It would have been blow away in Belgium. See picture 1

I am not looking for an airplane to win a glider contest, do not forget.


Cees

Merry christmas

Added on 14 jan 2009

Aerodynamics>> Identifying optimum incidence or decalage for scratch built
Date: 1-3-2009
Post: 2

pimmnz

True, but a good glide is indicative of a good L/D, and an efficient airframe whatever its intended task. Since there wasn't a Perigee entered in '63, we'll never know how it would have performed. I can make the statement about its suitability as a model for 'forties' as I have currently flying in the hanger an Astro Hog, Orion, Taurus, Nimbus, Perigee, and Concord, all similarly powered, so I can actually make the comparison with some experience of all the 'best' types current at the time. I also instruct and perform 'first flights' of local flyers models when asked, so I also get current with some of the latest designs, and whilst comparison is often invidious, most of the current crop don't meet the standards of the older designs.
Evan, WB #12.

Taurus Flyer

pimmnz,


When I say, windgradient, do you know what I mean with that?
The relationship between the windspeed and the distance to the ground!
Can you explain me what that stab has to do on that high level above the ground and above the wings during landing?

I can tell you the reason.
Tom didn't know the difference between the tricycleplane and the taildragger.
He did copy the Orion (taildragger) and did some "modifications", so nose wheel undercarriage.
He forget that when you do not lower the tailcone and change the angles of wng and stab, the plane will have a tail-high position during handling on the ground.
That makes the plane extreme wind sensitive in ground handling.(windgradient)
Also during landing the wings will came in an environment of low windspeed while the stab still has a high wind speed on high level when you try to land with high speed to keep the stab out of the dirty air of the wing. You know what happens then! Again it falls down out of the air on the lowest level.
The Perigee would have been blow away in Belgium. Simple is that.
And do not muddling waters, of course the people of Douglas do know the difference.
Only they would not use a taildragger when a tricycleplane is better .
And when a tricycle was needed, they would design a tricycleplane and not give a taildragger a nosewheel just like Tom did because you have zero points for the landing with that Perigee with nosewheel.in Belgiium.


So I am not looking for an airplane to win a glider contest I want a winner also in bad weather conditions when you see nobody on the field, only judges. and the (effect of the) wind!


Cees

pimmnz

Wind gradient Cees? Might be measureable differences over tens of metres, but within a few cm? I think you can forget about any of that sort of thing with model airplanes. Certainly my Perigee is much nicer to fly, in any sort of breeze, than the Taurus as it has a much wider speed range and is much less affected by the odd gust. As for 'wind sensitivity' on the ground I have to report that the high tail isn't any different than any of the other trike gear models, and certainly less of a problem than any of the taildraggers. As for 'keeping the stab out of the dirty air of the wing', surely this is much more likely to happen with a lower tailplane position, like Astro or Taurus? Given that any 'dirty wake' at landing speed is hardly likely to extend more than 1/2 a chord or so behind the main wing, no matter where the tail is, it won't be affected by any 'wing wake'. Landing points, even at Belgium, was judged for the whole approach, not just the touchdown, a Perigee is just the same as any three legged model during this phase. Seems you are just casting 'red herrings' around. As for Douglas going to three wheels, that was to keep the passenger cabin level on the ground, as well as in the air, not for any aerodynamic reason, the passengers, the 'paying public' simply preferred not to climb up and down the cabin. Till next time!
Evan, WB #12.

Taurus Flyer

Evan
To make my post short I show you how Ed did thought about the highlighted part of your post, because you will never believe me. Ed did not mean "that" high, when I look to your Perigee!
Think about this, cushion effect, wing and stab on the same level during touch down! And look to the Orions.
Talk also with glider designers and pilots, especially the slope gliders about the windgradient but also cushion effect and designers about the tailcone.

I was pilot of real gliders in the past so I know how to generate drag with the fuselage and tailcone.

That "trimmed tail high in level flight" Ed could not use anymore later because this is a disadvantage when flying inverted and outside loops became more important.
It was also the reason we see the frise ailerons not on the Oldest Taurus on Earth.
But trimmed tail high is also a disadvantage of the taildragger, because his high drag of the tail so no taildragger anymore.
BTW in the dutch language we do no have a word for "taildragger". We say the plane has a nose wheel, or the plane has a tail wheel.

When I would have told you this story by using "Dutch" words, I would sound like this.

The Perigee has a nosewheel but it is trimmed "tail high" like a plane with a tailwheel, the result is a needless lot of drag of the tail.

Taildragger sounds for me like the plane only is designed to generate drag with the tail, just like a lawnmower is designed to mow the lown with the mower.
For me it is also very difficult because you use tricycle. Tricycle? Cannot you count overthere, see picture 4.
I think you all did forget the real hystory of the word "taildragger" and I like to hear from you how this word is "originate" and when? I think in the period when the first "planes with nosewheel" did became popular.




Cees