So they didn't!



Use brass bolts for mounting the engine, no steel!

Some times you can limit the damage by NO using the best quality of steel but YES using the best quality of brass

We are all a little bit Brass Brothers.

Thanks Ed for telling us that!!!

Cees

The chain is no stronger than its weakest link!


Edit, did change the message because wrought iron is not cast / crude iron !

Read the story, the amount of slag as they found is depending of the cast iron of a blast furnace,'
Did work a few years at these furnaces (1924/1926 built!) and the quality of the left one Hoogoven 2, was good enough to make furnaces without any treatment of the crude iron
In the eary period the iron was sold as "bricks" to other factories.
The slag is separated from the iron directly after it leaves the furnace when iron and slag are still liquid, by difference in weight/mass.
In the Neterlands we call the orion/slag separator foxhole (vossehol). It all has to do with animals when we are talking about the Taurus and quality insurance, so still "on topic".


Cees

Supplementary to post #1120:

The RCM&E plan could be close to the Myers plan as the MAN plan could be close to the kit plan (only assumptions, of course). Both plans can be compared to each other and to the real model as we see it on pictures.

The RCM&E plan is as well "distorted", meaning here that the dimensions are not equal horizontally and vertically. I used the scale factors 6.3 (h) and 6.5 (v) to reproduce the specified dimensions. Interestingly, the chord length at the wing saddle is the same in the top and side view if the same scale factor (6.5) is used. Consequently, the overall length specified as 52.375" should be 53.5" and the distance from wing saddle rear to fuse tip is 26" (as in the MAN plan)!

Again interestingly, the specified 35" half span can be reproduced, but if a few pieces are joined there is 0.5" less half span, making the wing span 69". In the small drawing, accuracy is not that good so a few inaccuracies add up to half an inch, which is "only" 1.43%. Using the "nice round number" 3" as rib spacing, there are 33" from center to the last rib and about 1.5" tip, which seems to be meant as half span, therefore.

In the MAN plan, the outer three rib panels are a bit "squeezed" what adds up to 0.25" less span, but the wing tip is thicker by that amount (1.75" ). Duane said the same for the kit plan. The chord lengths both of root and tip rib are greater than in the RCM&E plan, no matter if you use the specified dimensions as scale (6.3) or the slightly greater (correct?) scale (6.5). The longer tip rib could explain why the tip is 0.25" thicker on the MAN plan, but...

...there could be one basic problem with the RCM&E plan. I suppose someone took the Myers plan and reproduced it, what means he took parts of it, like the top view and the side view, and copied/scaled them photomechanically. Maybe somewhere in this process the plan got a bit too short in horizontal direction. There were no dimensions in the Myers plan (again an assumption), but he assumed the wingspan to be the nice round number 70" - not too bad, but not quite correct. Taking this a a scale, he specified the overall length in the side view and the other dimensions. (Additional indication: After all someone has specified also the other things like balsa qualities.)

By measuring the dimensions in the plan and using a wrong scale for whatever reason (I can only speculate), the horizontal dimensions were specified too small. Using the "right" scale gives at least the same tail length, as well as fuselage tallness, as in the MAN plan. The rib length's are still different, though, so this might even be intentional, or some misunderstanding (tip rib 8.3" in the MAN plan).

The difference between the wing saddle rib length's in the top and side view is another thing. It seems that the trailing edge is simply more cropped or clipped in the side view, giving also a too thick trailing edge. Another clue: The root rib is drawn in 1:4 scale, the drawing is in 1:12 scale. The length of the root section in the side view is exactly 1/3 of that of the root rib without sheeting and trailing edge spar. In the MAN plan, the root section in the side view is equal to the W-1 rib. May be a long-standing error, repeated (copied) in every version of the plan.

Maybe as well the horizontal dimensions in the RCM&E plan are correct. In this case, the MAN plan may be wrong but that wouldn't matter because the ribs were pre-cut, as was pointed out before. So we would need not only a plan but an original kit to check that. Incidentally, there would be minor differences between the RCM&E and the MAN plans besides the wing chord, like the tail and nose lengths and the nose tallness.

By the way, I noticed that "too-big-wing-planform" phenomenon on plans of other models posted in this forum. As long as the rib spacing and spar position are correct, why not draw leading and trailing edge a bit more outwards so one can see them better when the wing is built over the plan. Just an idea.

It's late now so "no responsibility is taken for the correctness of this information" yet.

Ustik,

I read in reply to Taurus Flyer?

See thread : SPA FEATURED in May Model Aviation Article - 5/2/2006


"....if it looks like a duck, it's is a duck"."????

The champions did have theire “Secret planes�, the man in the street did not recognize them and even now does not want believe that!!!!!

The personal ship was the first step to beat the duck of the man in the street and of course do not distribute your own drawings!

That only picture of Les Fruh ( and of course not the Short Standard Taurus for proportional !!) is important for me, but you only recognize them when you design the planes yourself or use “methodes� to compare. I did fly “Masters� many years.
Stop throwing away your costly time!

Cees

A couple of photos from the English mags, I think they show the same guy on the same day, but the RCM&E photo is dated September 1964, and the Aeromodeller, June 1964. Looking at the clothing it was cold, so late Winter/early Spring 1964? The airplane is interesting, short, propo, what looks like the Bosch wing section and a modded standard fuselage. Duane, you have a fuselage a bit like this?
Evan.

Forgot to add the next page from the RCM&E article, it goes on to say the tail moment is shortened 2" by relocating the tailcone 2" forward, and the dihedral is increased by 1" to 3 1/4". I can find no mention of Ed later than this.
Evan.

Oh well Cees, so you keep riddling and stay a show-off?

UStik, PIMMNZ


Look post 73 page 3!, the picture I show you again!
A prove there were Contest Taurusses used by Ed Kazmirski and Les Fruh.
On the moment I did saw this picture I did fly my Taurus many years and of course I saw immediately this isn’t a Standard Taurus, but nobody else did recognized this because you are not “Taurus Flyer�.
We recognize family members between thousands of people and more, believe me!!
After I saw this picture my story started and never changed! Only searching for additional information to redesign and reconstruct the first one!


Cees

We saw this picture, (the one on the first page), plane and fuselage before, and at the time decided it was NOT one of Ed's planes, (look at the tail paint), but at the time, only the picture was presented without the text, so now we know that plane belonged to Ed, and is even called the Taurus-2. The fuselage is more like like the standard Taurus, NOT the Taurus 2 I have. The wing definitely has the same paint scheme as mine, and if the pacture was taken in 1964, Ed would have been exposed to the Baosch airfoil from the '63 W/C, and would have had time to build it. It looks a bit "stubby"-looking compared to the "Fruh" Taurus next to it, which indeed has the same silhouette as my Taurus 2.

I don't have a definite answer, (and we shouldn't rush to provide one), but again we have something similar to the FLOP, that looks like a hybrid between the old and new. I don't have a complete answer. To answer PIMMNZ, the "unfinished fuselage" looks like that fuse, but it's longer. The only difference between the Taurus-2 and the "Unfinished" (in length, no overall shape), is the wing has been moved forward 1" in the Taurus-2.

One other thing...I DO think it partially settles the question of when these fuselages were built...between the '63 W/C, and the 1964 trip to Japan, (over that winter). We STILL don't know exactly which came first.

Duane

Cees;

I'm not sure what the quote from my first article has to do with the subject matter other than people constantly experimented, and made modifications to suit their need. The "Duck Rule" in the quote has to do with building, (or not) model exactly like the plans in a vintage competition. SPA follows that rule that if it is close to the original, and looks like the original oerall...then they accept it.

What exactly do you mean with "throwing away your costly time"?

Evan

I have edited my earlier post as I believe you are correct. You certainly have studied that plan in detail. I didn't think to actually measure the ribs and compare them to the wing outline. Ed may very well have made templates of his ribs that were the basis for the drawings. I wonder how many people, (they would have all been experienced builders may have built the plane as drawn?
Probably NONE of them.

I'm beginning to believe that Ed may not have been totally candid about the mods he made to his plane as Cees pointed out above. I'll have to carefully measure the NATS Cover Taurus this fall. Tell me exactly what measurements you want, and remember I'm measuring the actual plane and not plans

Duane

Same to you fella

I guess that goes to show that we often look at ourselves differently than those cold-hearted ( ie objective) people in the outside world do

Duane

PIMMNZ

Could you post that second page please? As I said, we saw the PICTURE ONLY way back on page 3, and took it to be Ed posing with somebody else's Taurus, but this sheds new light on the whole thing, and yes, this IS his own plane and is yet another part of the Taurus evolutionary process. While called the Taurus-2 in the article, it is definitely NOT the Taurus-2 we have now.

************************************************** **************
My opinion for the time sequence for the Taurus-2 has been affected by this latest revelation while looking at the Japan tour info, most likely in early 1964. Please stay with me on this. The following ideas just "dawned on me". I think the conclusions are correct and important, but you folks may not agree. Please don't be too eager to poke holes until you've thought it all through. Some of you may have already arrrived at this conclusion some time ago, but for me, the fact the plane in the "Japan Tour" picture is Ed's rather than someone else's as we first thought changes a lot for me.

As Cees pointed out, (as only Cees can), Les Fruh's plane, (also at the same flight demonstration tour of Japan), has the same, or very similar) fuselage shape/configuration of the present Taurus-2. Remember that the Taurus-2 fuselage was built, (or rebuilt to suit Cees) for the 1963 flying season, (we have dated photos from Aug 1963 showing the Taurus-2 fuse in its present form), and appeared in both the Carrier pictures, and as Ed's back-up plane for the W/C for 1963; (perhaps Les built his "sleek fuse" at the same time). The Taurus-2, (second generation), concept plane Ed built originally had the thick, symmetrical "Carrier wing", but after test-flying the plane with that thick wing, then later seeing Bocsh's airfoil at the '63 W/C, Ed abandoned that wing concept. (My own theory is the thick-wing plane would not spin...the spinning problems Ed had with the thick 2419 airfoil all along were only made worse by the thick wing).

Continuing his search for a better performing Taurus, his original 1964 concept had a new shortened fuselage similar to, but different from the "unfinished", (which is not shorter), and the new Bosch airfoil wing. Ed employed all the mods described in the RMM&E article with the hope that this configuarion would fly better on proportional. (Note: I have seen published elsewhere, Ed's theories for flying his Taurus on proportional, namely a shorter tail moment, and increased dihedral. The RMM&E article confirms this). This 1964 Japanese tour plane of Ed's embodied those ideas.

So now they go on tour early in 1964, (like the Beatles). When you read the details of Les's plane, he also followed Ed's ideas about the shorter fuse and increased dihedral, (but maybe different amounts), but the fuselage has the thinner, sleeker look to it like Ed's 1963 T-2 fuselage. This means it was built later than Ed's T-2 fuselage, (that still has the long tail moment and may have originally flown on reeds before being converted to proportional.

Immediately after returning from Japan, Ed took HIS Taurus-2 fuselage, and converted it to accept the Bosch-style wing. He flew that plane for the remainder of the 1964 season, including the '64 NATS, and by all evidence, was happy with it. This was the LAST Taurus on the evolutionary ladder before he started the Simla project for the 1965 flying season.

Why did he come back from Japan and convert the Taurus-2 to the Bosch wing instead of staying with the "stubby Taurus-2"?? The only reason I can think of was that he didn't get the desired results from the shortened fuselage that he wanted, and decided the longer tail moment was still an improvement , even when proportional is used. This is important, because it essentially means Ed changed his mind about the value of "stubby plus increased diheadral" to "longer tail moment and less (perhaps), dihedral". Can anyone tell from looking at the picture if the dihedral is more or less than the "standard" Taurus?

One more thought. I reviewed the notes I took after my hour-long talk with him back in the late summer of 2007. In them I wrote that Ed said he had built only THREE Taurus models...the original '62 NATS model...the taper wing...and the Simla. That either means I misunderstood what he said, (it was sometimes difficult to understand him; he was in his mid-80s, and his memory was admittedly sketchy about details), or that Ed had in fact built several other models that our research has brought to light, incluing the PCM, (prototype), and the "stubby-fuse" Taurus-2. The way Ed mixed and matched wings and fuselages, it is certainly understandable the exact number of planes may be hard to remember.

Duane

Duane, Ed's statement that he built only three Taurus models is completely coherent for me. Obviously, I understand it a bit different (again ). When Ed denotes the Simla as a Taurus that means he saw Taurus as a "concept" with three major development steps. I still can't help thinking that Simla actually means "similar" (I even think you once wrote that) because it's not really a Taurus, at least not like the T2. Any swept wing Taurus is consistently called Taurus 2.

For me, it seems obvious now that each step "consisted" of several models, or better several wings and fuselages. Remember the extreme pusher experiment, built as well 1963/1964, that was not called Taurus but provided the second swept (Bosch airfoiled) wing. I hope I understood you correctly assuming the wing in the Japan picture is the carrier wing (at least it's the paint scheme).

I can't make out the dihedral, though, neither the thickness. Actually, it looks like a standard-thickness (19%) wing, just swept. Also the paint scheme is not quite the carrier wing scheme because the edges of the black and red parts are not parallel to each other and to the trailing edge. In the shadow cast by Ed on the left wing there seems to be the same diagonal rib structure as in the carrier wing.

The fuselage, on the other hand, looks (and is) quite similar to the Nats/MAN cover fuselage. I'm rather confused by the pilot because I find it looks like the Top Flite pilot, but I should ignore that for now. The dimensions fit by all means: 27" from wing saddle to fuse tip (rear), 9" from canopy tip to fuse tip (front).

If I ignore the pilot, it could be the right crate fuselage about which we don't know anything except that the pilot still exists (hence ignore it for now). The paint scheme is standard as well as the fuse proportions, but the tail could have been modified and painted provisorily.

This not to poke holes but to add to the indications (not confusion).

Ed's design and experimental work was a lot more complicated than anything I've done. I've never switched wings back and forth between planes, (not once but multiple times), and built several exprimental fuselages, testing different theories...for me ONE wing and ONE fuselage, (except for the King Altair wing that has been on two fuselages, so there goes that theory).

Anyway, I can see how it would be possible for the 86 y.o. Ed to forget the details and focus on the 'basics". I like your idea for "steps" rather than individual planes. It is becoming increasingly obvious that several fuselages, and wings were built, and the Taurus-2 wing alone has apparently been part of at least THREE PLANES, (the pusher, the "stubby Taurus-2" and the present Taurus-2). [X(]

This whole evolutionary process has been fascinating, but still, I think the sequence I outlined above works out on the "timeline" of events. I believe Ed's theory of shortening the tail moment and increasing dihedral simply didn't help, (and may have made flight characteristics worse). The final Taurus-2 had the longest tail moment of any of the Taurus airframes, (of course not counting the Simla). For pilots of Ed's caliber however, the flight characteristics differences were probably minimal...they would simply adjust to whatever the plane was doing, (remember Ed said the PILOT is 65%...still that other 35% is worth trying to improve through experimentation). The long tail moment truly helps make the plane smooth, and track well throughout each maneuver. The King Altair has an even longer tail moment than the Taurus, as do many modern 2-meter planes.

When I re-read the first few pages of this thread, it is obvious just how far we have come in understanding the "big picture". At the time the picture on page 3 was first revealed, (without text unfortunately), I just didn't "pick-up" on that being Ed's plane. The real Taurus-2 hadn't hardly been discussed at all at that point, and hadn't yet appeared for auction. I'd like to think after 43 more pages, that we have progressed at least SOME.

I had two pictures I wanted to post on my previous thread, but the system will not allow it right now for some reason. Maybe later.

Duane

Duane, your wish is my command.
Evan.

Supplementary to post [link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8624856]#1120[/link] and [link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8629073]#1128[/link]:

These pictures were un-distorted and brightened for measurement (already last year). The undistortion makes the distances in the pictures true. Though they could have been stretched a tad more it's not too bad. The wing saddles, which provide as benchmark, are both 12". The dimensions were measured and drawn using a graphics program (scale ratio 5.2), the numbers were rounded to 1/4" or 1/8".

You see the characteristic differences between the 1962 Nats (MAN cover) fuse and the 1964 Nats (T2) fuse. The dimensions may be not quite accurate, but precision is better than 1/4" if not 1/8". Moreover, the dimensions are so different that accuracy doesn't really matter. And look at all these figures! Seems Ed strictly followed the NRN rule - nice round numbers!

Of course, in the right picture accuracy is not that good due to greater dimensions, viewing angle, and other influences. It's hard to see the stabilizer root tip so the dimensions is not correct, anyway. I would think the error is 0.25" and the upper fuse's tail moment arm is 1" shorter than that of the lower one.

Compare to the measurements in the plans (posts 1120 and 1128). Now seeing the plans are not that different at all, we should compare the models to each other and to the plans. Also compare Cees' picture in post [link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8574778]#377[/link] in his thread.

It seems that the MAN cover model, at least the fuselage, is very close to the plans. RCM&E and MAN plan don't even differ in tail length, and the real model's tail seems to be that dreaded 1 inch "longer than in the plans".

Not yet clear are the wing planform dimensions in the plans. We should really have measurements of the wing chord lengths of the 1963 W/C wing to clear that matter up. The chord length at the wing saddle is the benchmark for fuselage length measurements in pictures, so at least that's why it's important.

I had hoped that someone else would have done this tedious measuring job. Oh well...

Evan

Thanks for "granting my wish". I will take your silence as confirmation that you agree with everything I just said in my last couple posts.

Duane

UStik....Excellent post

That's why you are such a great addition to this thread. You are a "details person", (so is Cees). I am also to a certain extent, but you REALLY ARE, and that's great. I can benefit and learn from your work, but I would never be intrigued enough to do what it takes to get the results.

The other day I was reviewing the "new" Simla pictures, and they provide just enough new information to inspire more interest in re-creating that model from the scanty data and photos we have, (so far). A friend of mine and myself began talking about recreating the Simla while Ed was still alive, and thought how great it would be to demonstrate the ressurected Simla with him there. I know how much it hurt him to lose that model, and have it vanish like it did; (M.A. 10/2007). It would have been great to bring it back!! Unfortunately, it was not to be, but the project still interests me.

There was such a public interest generated after my second (July 2007) MA article, and write up of the Simla story that the editor of Model Aviation, (the AMA publication), Michael Ramsey promised he would publish a construction article if we could do it. We looked at the information we had, but ran into some walls...just not quite enough info to generate an accurate reconstruction of the true Simla; there would have been a lot of guesswork. Since then, through this thread, we have been provided some additional clues.

Along that line, I'd like to know if a graphics program of some sort may make it possible to "draw" (re-create), the Simla from different angles based on somehow tracing the photos we have? I have the desire, but NOT the technical knowledge needed to know just what can be done, (what is possible), and what can't. I am sure there are people out there somewhere who know about these programs, and what can be done with them. I have seen some of the things both you and Cees have done in your illustrations...this makes me believe that it might be possible.

Unfortunately the Simla pictures are quite small, (about 3" X 3"), but they appear to be sharp prints. One of the pictures shows a top view similar to the one below, only at an angle that is a bit more straight on. I'll check into the possibility of getting the highest resolution scans possible made, and someday, reconstructing the Simla will be a "project" I'd like to work on with someone, (or a group). I'll post a few of the pictures soon.

Duane

The pictures I couldn't post earlier on post #1138 are now there if anyone can tell me if the diheadral is greater or less than that of a standard Taurus.

Also, Ray/UStik....did you get your "packages" yet??

Duane

No package yet... []

So you meant the T2/pusher wing? There were two older pictures (one of them with the carrier wing, you know ) that would be good enough, but this straight front view is excellent.

The wing bottom is flexed by 8 degrees, that is 4 degrees dihedral. The wing top has 2 degrees dihedral, so the "aerodynamic dihedral" (at the airfoil chord) is 3 degrees (symmetrical airfoil).

The MAN plan is too small to read the numbers, but the drawing shows the same - 8 degrees flexing (4 degrees dihedral) at the wing bottom. Edit: 4.5" gives 7.8 degrees flexing, that is 3.9 degrees dihedral. Thanks Ray!

If you take the specifications given in the RCM&E page posted by Evan, the standard 2.25" "dihedral" under the outermost rib (at 33" half span position) give 3.9 degrees as well. The greater "dihedral" of 3.35" would give 5.6 degrees. I suppose they mean the "real" dihedral. The RCM&E plan says 2.25" dihedral under bottom spar, that's the same.

So the pusher wing has standard Taurus dihedral, as well as the carrier wing. Obviously, the "Japan Taurus" has not the carrier wing, but it may nevertheless have standard dihedral (just can't recognize) as it has a standard fuselage (see #1139 above).

Duane,

It is entirely possible to get true dimensions from a photograph taken at an angle, ship modellers have been doing it for years. Somewhere I have kept the article that explains it, I will dig it up for you.

That would be a great start. Wouldn't that kind of software be expensive, and do you need a computer graphics degree to run it?

All the same, I think it would be a worthy project. I was surprised at the interest in the Simla. That was the topic that we devoted most of our phone conversation to. I asked Ed if there were formal drawings, and he said no. He probably made sketches on brown paper, , then threw them away when done with the project. Boy would it ever be nice to have a drawing now!!

Duane

Found it! The article is "Rediscovering the Nixie", published Winter 1996 by the log of Mystic Seaport. Author Charlie Storrow (a friend of mine) used a perspective vanishing point projection to derive the boats' dimensions. The article is not exactly clear about the method, but the diagram shows a lot. The same math can be used for the Simla photo, I'm sure.

UStik - 4.5 inches.

Not yet Duane.

Ray