BUSTED! - Looks like a blimp all on its own............

Nic.

I agree: the 33 % Thick wing is busted but,

Thinking about a 23 % thick wing the message is very plausible because I did restart my hobby again after nearly 25 years.
And also I did use my old Multiplex radio transmitter and second (new) HB 10 cc again just like there was nothing changed.
Also my glider was still flying.

So,

Taurus plausible
KB 45 Torpedo plausible

We have to take account of that when reconstruct the history of Ed Kazmirski’s Taurus.

Cees

Gents, I did receive an article of MAN about the world RC championships of 1963.



From my own post 223
See the picture!
What about that, even with the restriction in the carb (narrow throat?) a rich motor.
With the K & B 45, the better breather, he maybe had win the game?

Cees

Gents,

I do not know the American language as well as other people and normally I understand what I read but.
The next phrase , maybe someone can explain to me what this means, picture 1.
(From the same MAN article about the World Championships 1963 Belgium!)

BTW, I did tell before I did nor do read any magazines but, all the facts I try to prove, aren't these simple written down here?



I think the people in Belgium did know the second plane in the crate was the:

Faithful Old Original Taurus.

Father of all Taurusses who did give his own wings to his son the MAN/TOP FLITE TAURUS.

So give him the change to win from all his cousins, and he did!

By this way of doing he did throw away the change to be the best of the World again but also did not cheat his own fans.

Because when Ed did have used the father with reeds he could have beat them all for sure.

Í do call the father of all Taurusses:

The Oldest Taurus on Earth

and Ed Kazmirski his designer.

I think I nearly finished my job.


Comment please.

Cees

Cees,

I don't know if Ed used a Mariotte Bottle/chicken hopper type fuel tank or not but this is how he filled it.

Ray

Ray,

First point is this is not the Taurus Kingaltair did ask the tank to explain.
Second point is what I did write in post 223 page 9

See picture second choice.


Gents no points to discus in this thread anymore, the Ed Kazmirski's Taurus is a better thread for that.
I only wait for comment on my post 229


Cees

Not quite sure what your after Cees, so here is the complete review.

Ray

Ray,

Thank you.
When I did get is before, it disappeared somewere in my computer.
It looks a little familar to me!!

Thanks Cees

Ray, Gents

After I did receive the data from Ray of the ST56 I do have make two pictures to look at and to show you how I look to the differences:
1 the ball bearers VECO 45 and ST 56
2 the K & B 45 Torpedo "Super Sucker"

It is possible that the K & B 45 also has a better internal breathing because of the better compression ratio of the crankcase.

When the power is enough of the K & B 45, the less weight, more stabile fuel/air ratio and the less fuelconsumption of the K & B could be the biggest profits.
Because of the light weight of the Taurus I think the K & B 45 was the best for the idea of Ed ,as constant speed as possible.

Still waiting for comment on my post 229

Faithful old Taurus = MAN cover girl/1962Nats winner.
Evan, WB #12.

pimmnz, these are you own words.


Gents last construction details before sanding ans silk covering and dope the wings.
The wing tips I built up from 3 layers of 10 mm and one of 8 mm.
Each layer I did remove the "too much interial material".
Definitive sanding together with the LE of the wing, I use templates for that so there are no differences in the LE and wingtip shapes.


Cees

Yes Cees, but Ed modified 'his' Taurus to be 1" longer than the original version. Ed's modified Taurus won the 1962 US Nats, went to Africa and came 3rd in Belgium 1963 World Champs. It's on the cover of the Jan 1963 MAN and is the MAN plan and Top Flite kit version. Old Faithful. The October 1962 RCM&E plan was done from the original blueprints and shows the shorter fuselage which Ed went back to when proportional came along and the longer moment wasn't needed for smooth control.
Evan, WB #12.

Gents,

The woodwork is finished today, so some picture, also nice for the future.

It is a milestone of a lot of work, mainly the laser beaming and making the drawings. Hanna Poes did do her last line inspection while the Hot Plane was cooling down in the snow. She says I may continue with finishing, so making templates, sanding etc.

Cees

Cees I just got a Taururs kit I have had a few Taururs, How much total dihedral do you have? I cut mine down but It has been many years since I built my last one and I can't remember about the dihedral.

cygnet,

The Taurus you see in the snow is a reconstruction of the Crat Picture Taurus as you can read in this thread. The dihedral has to be some more in the future I already discovered by making a picture of the wing identic as the crate.

This only has to do with this special projet.

For my and your (TF) Taurus (see picture) I use the dihedral as noticed on the plan. 4 ½ “, I did measure it and for my wing it is + 110 mm

Reasons,

Traditional, I like the way he looks like and this is Classic Pattern Flyiing.
I also fly under bad weather conditions and the plane flies great, there was never one single reason to change the dihedral, rolling is 100 % slow roll also..
When flying on concrete or asphalt the tips will hit the ground too fast with less dihedral when manouvring to touch down with some crosswind.
I often hear they do give less dihedral to fly knife edge! The Taurus isn't designed for Knife edge and I think the other flying capabilities became worse with less dihedral.
Flying only on rudder I will try also in the future I thought it was possible but not easy.
Last but not least, when you do not change the dihedral you will never forget anymore, it is (nearly!) as on the plan.

Have fun with building and flying the Taurus again you will feel young.
(Do not forget to make a nice picture for that for in your profile!)

Cees

That looks really nice Cees!!!

pimmnz answer your post 237

I think the history is too complicated for you to write down in such a short post.
At least you must make a time schedule for yourself to write down the important facts you use and learn.

As I did write in an other thread about a post of you also, I think you have to speak better with your info people and be careful with writing down important information without knowing the facts. Do not work with facts you did not prove yourself.

First I split up your complete message with only the facts numbered in the sequence of my own “Taurus construction and flying schedule”. This schedule is growing every month by the details I discover, I am making rev D now.

Your post: 237

3. Yes Cees, but Ed modified 'his' Taurus to be 1" longer than the original version.

4. Ed's modified Taurus won the 1962 US Nats,

2. went to Africa and

7. came 3rd in Belgium 1963 World Champs.

6. It's on the cover of the Jan 1963 MAN and is the MAN plan and Top Flite kit version.

1. Old Faithful.

5. The October 1962 RCM&E plan was done from the original blueprints

8. and shows the shorter fuselage which Ed went back to when proportional came along and
the longer moment wasn't needed for smooth control.


Now I re arrange the facts in the normal time schedule and add the info as best I have on this moment:

1. Old Faithful
First period is half 1961 Ed did design and build the first Contest Taurus for himself after the Flop still with a normal tail length. This is the plane I reconstruct now.

In December 1961 the first preproduction Taurus is designed and put in plans and this Taurus does make the first flight probably in the last months of 1961. The fuselage of this Taurus already does have the standard Taurus length and is wider than the contest Taurus. Also the thrustline has a higher position than the contest Taurus.

2. went to Africa
In 1962 Ed did make the first preproduction Taurus for Top Flite for promotion activities and went to Africa in april with also his own Contest Taurus.

3. Yes Cees, but Ed modified 'his' Taurus to be 1" longer than the original version.
After Ed came back from Africa he did make his own Contest Taurus longer. He did make this one inch longer than the Preproduction Top Flite Taurus he had.

4.Ed's modified Taurus won the 1962 US Nats,
In 1962 Ed did use the (one inch longer) Contest Taurus for contest flying in 1962, we can read that in the magazines. He also did use the Preproduction Top Flite Taurus for promotion, but probably not for contest.

5. The October 1962 RCM&E plan was done from the original blueprints
The first public publication is in RCM & E, drawings probably made with use of the plans of December, no Top Flite details, The RCM & E shows us the K & B Engine in the nose of the Taurus.

6. It's on the cover of the Jan 1963 MAN and is the MAN plan and Top Flite kit version.
The first MAN Publication with the drawing and description of the Taurus and remarkable details of the preproduction Top Flite Taurus Ed did have with him to Africa.
In the MAN drawings we see still the K & B 45.

7. and came 3rd in Belgium 1963 World Champs.
Yes, in Belgium Ed did use an old wingset of the (Old Faithful) Contest Taurus with the Top Flite preproduction Taurus fuselage. I did show you all in the thread of the Ed Kazmirski’s Taurus, but, he did already change the (Old Faithful) Contest Taurus again with the thick wing and thick sheeted stab (carrier).

8 and shows the shorter fuselage which Ed went back to when proportional came along and the longer moment wasn't needed for smooth control.
That was a long time later and you did forget the swept back wing.
in 1964 During the trip of Ed in Japan and Les Fruh during the nats we see the shortened tail, the last generation of the Taurus.

So that makes the story clear, you are synchronized, do not forget the sequence of your facts anymore!

BTW It seems me better you do not post any message in my thread this way anymore otherwise than asking me questions about my project.

This message is also to make the situation clear for the future, I can look back with you and show this post.


Cees

But Cees, you wanted a comment on your post 229. Original blueprint (1961) exists, see the history thread. Blueprint from 1961 is 1" shorter than the TF/MAN/Kazmirski Taurus, Ed said so, see the RCM&E transcript. RCM&E plan from original blueprint, and is 1" shorter than the TF/MAN Kazmirski Taurus. I will not post on your thread again. Your Taurus looks just like the T2 that Duane has, very nice airplane.
Evan, WB #12.

To complete what is known (ie there is proof for)
1) 1963 W/C 'old Faithful is:
2) The Taurus Ed took to Africa, where there were 3 identical models (Dennis Hunt, eyewitness, who built one of them).
3) Winner of the 1962 US nats. (on record)
4) Is the same length and width as the TF/MAN plan (VR/CS have the thing, and it matches the drawings from the kit dimensionally).
5) Mid 1962 Ed sends plan of original Taurus and audio tape to RCM&E. (Before any TF/MAN drawings available).
6) Aeromodeller records that the Franklin brothers are building Taurus's August 1962. (can only be from copies of Eds plans)
7) October 1962 RCM&E publishes the magazine plan developed from Ed's plan and publishes the transcript from the tape, where Ed describes his modified (1") longer Taurus. Can only be 1" longer than the plan he sent and we know that his Taurus is the TF prototype, see (4) above.
8) Dennis Hunt recalls that he built his Taurus from plans on brown paper and instructions sent from Ed, why didn't Ed send Dennis a copy of the blueprint? My guess is because Eds Taurus was 1" longer than the blueprints, and had detail differences from the original plan, and you can see this when you match the RCM&E plan with the MAN version.
We don't agree, I know, but from what is known, it would seem that your Taurus is later than any of the African Taurus's, and appeared shortly before the 1963 W/Champs to take advantage of propo gear, and later modified to accept the slimmer standard Taurus wing profile. Enough.
Evan, WB #12.

pimmnz


Evan, as I did tell in my post 242 I only want to work with facts. That's the reason I came so far.
Remember you also did not want believe me when I did tell you Ed did mix up his planes to fly in Belgium and that's proved also.
I spend too much time on my project, so I cannot simple believe someone who did hear Mac Gyver stories.

If you cannot prove the BOLDand this is asked before, I cannot use it in my schedule!
They did not even had pianowire in Rhodesia in 1961/1962 and could not color paint models. it was the Middle of Nowhere for the modeler, that is what we know from the Dutch and English modelers.

So prove and we can go on and if you cannot, stop arguing because it is not believed, even you tell me this hundred times.


Cees

Cees,

You're just as guilty here. You ask Evan to prove something (a statement made by Dennis Hunt) and then base your own theory on anonymous modelers. In any situation, one must choose the identified source over the anonymous source.

I have really gotten a lot of laughs from this thread as you tell us what us was thinking. My wife tries to do that, but she's nearly always wrong. And we've been married 23 years!

ROFL!

Andy

Andy,

It is all in: “Our Mr. K goes to Africa”. We did talk about in the thread of Ed Kazmirski’s Taurus. And pimmnz knows this article.
I did start this thread to show the way how I design and build the Wester Taurus and things I discover in the future by flying the plane.

Maybe tomorrow I can show the pictures how I sand the nose radius/LE of the wings.

BTW what means ROVL! ?

Cees

ROFL = Rolling On Floor Laughing.

It means you are saying or doing something that makes me laugh.

In this case, you telling us what Ed was thinking by analyzing datapoints which are not always well-established is funny to me because my wife tells me what I'm thinking, and even knowing me very well for 23+ years she is still wrong most of the time. Very presumptuous, IMHO, but I guess that's what makes you the expert.

It's nice to learn about the possible history of the model in your possession, but I fail to see how you can be so sure of yourself given circumstantial evidence 40+ years after the events. As prodigious a builder and experimenter as he was, could it not be that you have a different model - one that is otherwise unknown/undocumented? With 40 years of cutting balsa wood, I have had models given to me that I don't recall building, but upon close examination it looks like my work. Sometimes.

Andy

Andy, hello.

It isn’t as complicated as you think, only you have to be an inventor and less a modeler.
Reconstruction of history you have to do in steps, and make no mistakes.

Look in the article “Our Mr. K goes to Africa”.

The front page you can find in the thread : Ed Kazmirski’s Taurus. Post 462 Page 19
On the front page you read: and in turn the sponsor to be allowed advertising privileges.
In one of the other posts ( 468 same page) you can read : The trip throughout Africa to arrange with Top Flite.

What does these messages mean.

It means you only must work with the personal pictures from Ed and Les and other persons. A snap shot is better than ten pictures from a magazine I did tell before!


Every article about the Taurus can be from Top Flite , MAN, Veco so you must read it 10 times and remember there is maybe, not direct visible, information to use but be alert. (adjustable side thrust, restriction in the carburetor, personal ship!!!).

Always remember they want you do believe the Top Flite Taurus and the Veco were the best? It is possible they did pay for that.
With my schedule I nearly can say when VECO became a sponsor!

So, when you have give every fact you know a qualification number than you start order the facts in a schedule to check what can be true and what not.
Every new fact I discover I make my schedule better with more details.
Sometimes I have to enlarge time periods to fill in the facts, to make place in the schedule.
Last action every time again is looking for real times but that isn’t so important as the sequence.

Now I am in the situation my schedule is nearly complete but nobody believes me anymore so I did show myself, advertising works. But that is not new for me.

If you find it interesting I can tell you more how to arrange the Taurus Construction and Flying Schedule but I think this will do for a moment.

Next time the sanding, with a picture of my special tool in this post to show me the most forward point of the LE of the wing. Dark dashes I can make on the LE in different AOA by fix the wing set upside down on the floor. Still have to make the 5 templates.
Oh BTW Rembrandt is helping me this time.

Cees

Gents,

Sanding of the wings:

After making a templates of cardboard for 4 positions, rib 2, 5, 8, 11 , see picture 1, I did sanding the LE of the wings.

Sanding the LE I is one of the activities I do use electricity, see picture 2.
With electricity I make some light with one bulb, because then you have nice shadows.

After sanding and checking, also with my special tool the result is as I want. See picture 3.

The right shape of the nose checked over 8 positions of the wings and with my special tool between these positions.
Because of the big nose radius, the shape is very important, the split of the airstream over and under the left and right wing have to be the same in every AOA.


BTW, Andy, when you still read my thread!

Because you did have some troubles believing me, you write : ” but I fail to see how you can be so sure of yourself given circumstantial evidence 40+ years after the events.”

I did check my moment of start my reconstruction of the history.
The first e-bay auction of Ed Kazmirski’s Taurus was on 6/25/2008.
The pictures I saw also on 6/26/2008.
On 6/28/2008 in Ed Kazmirski’s Taurus I did post a message there was something wrong with the wings so I was warned.

Every next message I did check over a period of more than a half year now, to know were came these wings from, so I am very good informed and know the details of every message and every picture.

I also became some special pictures and working on getting more information, not only via RCU.
On 9/13/2008 I did start this thread because I did have enough info to build the Oldest Taurus on Earth again.

Estimated time I spend on my project : 200 days x 4 hours a day (mostly more) = 800 hours.


Cees