And the rest of the article. If anyone wants the original scans, just email me. Each page is 1.5Meg ([email protected])

UStik

I just took a look at your picture of the Taurus fuselage dimensions. So neat. How do you determine scale, (what an inch is)?

That picture will have to go in the article!!

Duane

Simply the wing saddle assumed to be 12". I think that's correct, but the wing might be a bit shorter. That's the problem with the measurements in other pictures. BTW, did you notice the trophy in the shelf?

UStik;

About post #1142, I can see at least 1 measurement problem, and that is the height of the Taurus-2 at the L.E. of the wing. Regardless, I'll provide exact measurements to confirm or correct yours when the Taurus-2 comes back to Asheville to live.

Later

Duane

That would be good, but most important seem the wing saddle length, from there to fuse tip (i.e. check your former measurement), and the wing chord length. There is some incertainty/inaccuracy in these big dimensions so your check could calibrate the picture measurements.

Don't expect too much error in the smaller dimensions, especially the vertical ones. The picture is un-distorted to (at least nearly) true dimensions, compare original and undistorted pictures. Of course, checking won't hurt.

The MAN cover picture is dimensioned here for comparison with the other dimensioned pictures and plans. Incertainties/inaccuracies neglected (e.g. due to fuse dimensions slightly tilted and not quite parallel), several dimensions are measured with the wing saddle / root chord length as benchmark.

If it is assumed to be 12", the other dimensions match those in the picture in post #1142. So this could be an indication that the distance from wing saddle to fuse tip is really 28". On the other hand, assuming the wing saddle to be 11.5" makes this distance 27" which was measured on the real model. Another reason to check.

The pictures in #1120, #1128, and #1142 are amended.

UStik, I think you might find that the wing chord at the centreline is about 11.5", but the cutout length will be somewhat greater, pretty close to 12" due to the slope front and rear to allow the wing to slide in the event of an 'incident'. Yes, Ed did like NRN!
Evan.

Yes, I know what you mean. But the rear is not sloped and you don't see the front slope when looking on the wing from top. Besides, the aileron bellcrank tube is painted white and belongs to the visible chord. That's on the rear, and on the front you look a bit inclined over the nose radius, making the chord seem a bit longer. That's why I think what I see as saddle/root chord in the picture is rather 12" than 11.5".

And additionally there are so many influences on accuracy, anyway. The dimensions are not exactly parallel to the picture plane, the pictures are rather small, distortion is not completely known, the graphics program doesn't accept two digits behind the decimal point, ... It would be quite expensive and costly to get better accuracy from these measurements, if it is possible at all. So I just juxtaposed (nice word, foreign word in German) two alternatives and keep hoping that all will be cleared up by real measurements.

In the meantime, the plans problem could be cleared up. After all, we still don't know which dimensions are the right ones or meant as right. Did you already have an opportunity to check the Myers plan and the kit plan for deformation / scale corruption?

Just another idea, may be nuts: What if Top Flite didn't want that someone uses their kit plan for scratch building? They deliberately printed the rib outlines too small, but the wing plan would be correct. Still it's obscure why they made the wing tip bigger and squeezed the outer rib panel for that. Anyway, I insist we need also an original kit (not only plan) to compare the (die cut?) ribs.

May I repeat Duane's call for contributions? Scratchgolfer, in post [link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8571124]#1063[/link] you said you built a Taurus from plans. Do you remember any details, where did you get the plan? Free Bird, in post [link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8559139]#1047[/link] you said you have a NIB Taurus kit. Is it the original Top Flite kit? What would Home and Hobby Solutions with their Primus kit say to our ponderings?

Deserves a new post:

Again checked the MAN plan in the article downloaded from casniffer's Classic Pattern Image Base. What if it's not stretched in vertical direction and horizontal and vertical scales are not different. Anyway, if I assume the rib spacing is exactly 3", I can measure the root and tip chord lengths (including ailerons) to be 12.375" and 7.75" - as specified in the RCM&E plan!

Possible explanation: The plan was photomechanically reproduced for the article. The plan details on page 12 are complemented by a scale (I use for calibrating). Actually, no scale had been needed for the actual plan page if only the reproduction scale factor had been the same - but it wasn't. So not the hor/ver scale factors differ but the scale factors of the two pages. Always draw/print a scale, even if it were only for those archaeologists later scanning the article pages with different resolutions!

I used scale factor 2.9 horizontally following the scale on page 12, and 2.7 vertically to obtain the 3" rib spacing in the plan page. BTW, you may copy my experiments by using Adobe Reader. On my 1280x1024 screen, the 9" scale is exactly 9 cm if display size is 157%, and the rib spacing is exactly 3 cm at 150% display size in Adobe Reader, so I can use my "cm" ruler.

Now the W-1 rib is 11.25" long, as in the outline drawing, and including nose sheeting and trailing edge spar it's 11.5", about 11.7" including aileron bellcrank tube. Still the wing cross-section in the side view is 11.25" long like the W-1 outline, but that doesn't matter. The wing planform is correct, maybe except that "quirk" (may be intentional as well) of the "too small" outmost rib panel and the "too big" wing tip (1.75" instead of 1,5" ). BTW, these are not that round numbers.

This sheds some light on the plans issue, even if not on the measurements issue. We still need the real measurements to calibrate picture measurements, but now the plans seem more correct than I thought (now I know the "trick" ). And there seems to be a similar problem with the printed kit plan, still to be checked, and even more with the Myers plan because it's at least a copy of a copy of the master drawing.

Now I have to check my plans/pictures measurements to see if things fit better now. Sorry for any confusion, just couldn't resist posting what I had so far.

In reality, the rib spacing is very close, but NOT exactly 3". Maybe that IS due to the process of repeatedly copying. I don't even know if my copy itself was from an original blue print or a copy.

Regarding the previous post about Top Flite deliberately printing the plan wrong to prevent people from building scratch, I think you've been watching too many "conspiracy type" movies. Back then, (and still now) a kit is so much better in quality of fit (compared to hand tracing and sanding each part), than scratch-building that it isn't funny, (an Americanism). I scratch-built TWO King Altairs, and I can tell you Jeff Petroski's kit is an absolute DREAM to build in comparison, and the parts are more true to the plans. At least with my skill level, and while trying to be as careful as possible, some human error creeks in when each part is hand traced, cut, and sanded.

Duane

Burkhard-Is there a computer program out there that would do what I need to do to re-create the Simla?

Yes, there are several, just too expensive to just go and buy one. I found them to be from 600 Euro up in the basic version, and we'd need a more advanced version. Post small scans of the pictures and I'll ask if I can borrow such a program or use it elsewhere. (See my yesterday reply.) Or maybe you know a surveyor, a construction engineer, or architect who does photogrammetry and lets you run your pictures through his program.

Undoubtedly, I've been watching too many "conspiracy type" movies. But that assumption was just - nuts. I stirred something up what even led to the (probably) right/true assumption I've described in the next post. Remember the calendar date!

The photos of your copy of the Myers plan show really nasty blotches what means this is a copy of a somewhat soiled and wrinkled paper plan. In fact, it's a blueprint, and supposedly the other paper plan was a blueprint as well, which is a contact copy of a transparent master plan. Your plan is at least a grandchild: master-copy-copy.

The blue color comes from the copying process. It is even possible that a plan is stretched compared to the master if there's not enough friction to hold the copy firmly on the master. (The copy machine runs them through rolls.) That's why there are dimensions in nearly all plans so you don't have to rely on a true copy process. But you can rely on Frank Myers as well as Ed for following the NRN rule and drawing exactly 3" rib spacing (OK, as exactly as drawing can be). [8D]

Use this as a scale, check the other dimensions and they should be nice round numbers as well, and check for straight lines and right angles. This way you can figure that plan/copy out.

The plans and the MAN cover compared again with more accuracy and sureness:

The RCM&E plan is rather small so both drawing and measuring accuracy is not that good but not bad either. The figures were rounded (NRN) and compared to the MAN plan. The latter should be a downsized version of the kit plan so must have been rather big and accurate, though still not perfect, as we already know. The rib spacing is not precisely 3", but the distance is always related to the wing centerline (as professional draftsmen do) and not to the next rib. Only the slight squeeze to the wingtip might be a flaw.

Except that, the wing is the same in both plans!

The fuselage center section is the same as well, including the 3.25" width. Both plans have the same problem with the wing section in the side view. Must be a flaw copied from one plan to the other, but it doesn't matter, anyway.

The front fuselage is slightly elongated, deliberately I mean, in the MAN plan. After all it is nearly a year younger and they had some "enhancements". The distance between the two bulkheads seems to be 0.5" bigger and there seems to be a bigger tank. The fuselage tip is 0.25" longer to allow for a Veco .45, which is a bit longer than the K&B .45 in the RCM&E plan. Even a spinner is drawn.

The rear fuselage, that is the tail moment arm, is deliberately elongated as well. I tried two dimensions, the distance between the wing trailing edge former and the horizontal stabilizer leading edge tip, and the distance between wing trailing edge and elevator hinge line. They are 16.75"/17.5" and 23.5"/24.5" in the RCM&E plan and the MAN plan, respectively. Difference is 0.75" and 1", but this is still consistent. You may see that the MAN plan (this copy) is distorted, and the difference should be rather 1". So the tail moment arm was elongated by 1"!

From the plans, the 12" scale is now known to run from wing leading edge to rear wing dowel. If this is assumed for the MAN cover picture, the distance from wing trailing edge to rear fuselage tip may be 27", as measured on the real model. That is, if it's corrected for an 8 degrees angle to the other lines, as it actually measures 26.6". There's a perspective problem with this picture. Now the two dimensions on top of fuselage get 1" shorter. Could be correct, but I don't know. Alas, that's the limited accuracy of measurement in such small pictures. After all I'm essentially counting pixels here.

Now it seems that the front fuselage was not elongated compared to the MAN plan, but the tail moment arm seems to be elongated by 1". The latter matches the other picture measurement so should be not entirely unlikely. The measured distance (27" ) is 1.5" more than in the MAN plan, but that may be even possible e.g. if the fin/rudder is raked differently. Of course, the picture measurements are less precise than the plan measurements, but 1" or even 2" is too much to be completely wrong. So the real model has a longer tail moment arm than even the MAN plan.

The two pictures with both existing fuselages on top of each other are corrected (re-calibrated) as well using the new 12" scale obtained from the plans calibration. The front fuselage dimensions of the upper fuse seem to match the MAN plan quite well, while the tail seems about 1" longer. At least the dimensions are the same as in the MAN cover picture. The lower (T2) fuse seems again at least 1" longer.

Fortunately, the real model still exists and can be measured for the ultimate check. It's merely a matter of time. []

Now please compare these plan measurements to the Myers plan and the kit plan!

The "Japan Taurus 2" shown here for comparison. Rear fuselage seems to be standard Top Flite, only canopy and front fuse are a bit different. The RCM&E article must mean that by sweeping the wing and setting the c/g back by 2" the tail cone is effectively shortened by the same amount. See youself.

The "Flop", on the other hand, is a modified Orion with a 1" longer nose and a 2.5" shorter tail. The tail moment arm was measured from wing trailing edge former to elevator hinge line (a "mean" hinge line for the "Flop" ). The The RCM&E Taurus has 23.5" and MAN Taurus 24.5", which is even 3"/4" more than the MAN Orion and 5.5"/6.5" more than the "Flop". (The differences are exaggerated by perspective.)

I'm not going to challenge what you say, but because there is no scale, (unless you want to use the spinner as the "given"), all your measurements depend upon the accuracy of that first measurement...(the chord distance) being correct. If it is, everything's OK, if not you're going to be off on the other measurements.

Duane

Duane, you should not believe that! (In fact you're completely wrong and should challenge what I say. ) Only the picture measurements are based on the 12" wing saddle scale, and it is now calibrated with Bob Noll's measurement. The MAN plan has an explicit scale that is the key to this issue, the RCM&E plan has dimensions. Please re-check my last post.

The measurements in the MAN plan are cross-checked against each other and corrected so that all is consistent. In fact, the wing saddle and root chord dimensions are even confirmed now and we only don't know if the real wing was modified (doesn't seem so). The RCM&E plan is essentially less precise (because it's small) but the measurements were calibrated and corrected using the MAN plan dimensions. Once finding out that the two MAN pages have different scales cleared all up and made all dimensions consistent.

You should not only have a look at the various dimensions in both plans and compare them (what is the same and what is different). You should also check the Myers plan against the RCM&E plan and the kit plan against the MAN plan. You can calibrate your measurements with the nice round numbers in the MAN plan and this way reproduce the nice round numbers in your plans (they are there, and it's easy because the plans are big).

Differences between the Myers plan and the two published plans would be most interesting, if you find some. Actually I thought Evan would do this job.

USTIK I have a original top flite kit what do you need to know?

WWI Aero Magazine offers a software program that can generate a drawing from a photograph. It's called 3PV. Contact them directly for information. http://www.ww1aeroplanesinc.org/docs/home.htm

Actually UStik, the TF kit plan and the MAN plan are essentially the same plan, with the various ribs and formers added to the MAN plan for the scratch builders. The MAN pan was released in conjunction with the TF kit, as a service to modellers, I guess. But, if you lay the Myers ribs over the MAN ribs, there is little to no difference in the sections. As you have found, the wings are the same. The only difference is in the fuselages, the biggest difference being the fuselage height, (+1/2" on the Myers) and the length (1" longer on the MAN/TF plan). There may be some positional differences in the formers, and the simplified fuselage section behind the wing, but nothing that eye would immediately pick up. The trick now is to build one of each, assuming you don't have one already, and take a photo of them in a box...
Actually, what we are now looking for is a drawing of Ed's 68" wing, although I doubt we will find one. A few dimensions from the existing one will have to suffice, then we can have the whole Africa adventure again! And the Nats winning model, though I have a feeling that that fuselage is not quite the same as the TF plan either, we will have to wait for a proper set of overall dimensions for that one. But this has been fun, and the discovery, and (hopefully) preservation of the Prototype Contest Taurus drawings has certainly made this (long) process really worthwhile. I must get some wood, I must get some wood...
Evan.

Could you check if the W-1 rib (the wig saddle rib) is really 11-1/4" long? Would be really great, because that would prove the scale in the MAN plan.

If you feel like it, you may also check the outermost W-12 rib to be 7-1/4". The first former behind the firewall (F-24) should be about 5-1/8" tall and 2-13/16" wide.

That should suffice. Thanks a lot!

Thank you Evan, good to hear that! So the ribs weren't even drawn on the kit plan, I didn't get that so far. If I get it correctly now, the fuselage is 1/2" higher on the Myers plan, so the RCM&E plan shows already the lower fuselage but still the shorter tail; only the MAN plan shows both lower fuselage and longer tail, as well as longer nose.

In fact, the 1962 Nats fuse seems to be even longer, all my picture measurements show that. Despite all inaccuracy and uncertainty of these measurements, it seems rather unlikely that the real fuse is like the MAN fuse. Can't wait for the measurements on the real model, I mean I really can't wait!

So it's not only fun, for me it's necessity to measure in the pictures. The experiment of building two models and photograph them in a crate I have to leave to Cees.

BTW, maybe Ed just experimented with the dihedral so the wingspan eventually lost an inch.

Good, UStik, I'm pleased to have helped clear things up for you. No, the kit plan doesn't have the ribs drawn, for the very good reason that it did not need them, same with the fuselage bulkheads, sections are drawn to help the shaping process, but as the ribs and formers were diecut for you, you didn't need the full size sections on the plan. Like you, I too am waiting to get some fuselage dimensions from the 'Cover Girl', perhaps we can prevail upon the good graces of Kingaltair, and he can park the assembled model with the rudder touching a wall, then take direct measurements from the wall to various obvious points on the airframe and allow us to adjust the plans we have to reproduce the cover girl too.
Evan.

Yes Evan, if you really want to scratch a Taurus you as well had to figure out that plan issue. Because I want to build only virtual models in a simulator I would do even with the small plan printed in MAN, if only the scans were straight. Both scans posted here are somewhat distorted, just differently. But obviously you, too, are interested especially in the 'Cover Girl' so we depend on Duane's good will. Therefore, we should rather say 'MAN cover model'.

I'm interested in - literally - simulating the look and feel of those old models, less the look and more the feel, that is. That's why I'm in search of this 'Holy Grail', that dreaded one inch more tail cone length. The simulator is that good that you would feel the difference in flight behavior, if it would be noticeable at all. Fortunately, even two of Ed's models still exist so chances are we'll find that HG.

But remember that Ed built far more models. He wasn't an aero engineer and had no wind tunnel, no computer, no simulator to check things out before building an airplane the right way in the first place. But he didn't need all that, either, because he built models and it's far simpler and cheaper, anyway, to build real models and test them. He not only pondered and looked for helpful suggestions, he also built several different wings and fuselages to try things out.

He used the same method that professional aero engineers use - trial and error. Only difference is that "reckoning instead of guessing" (what engineers do) was not possible for him. So he made an assumption, built sometimes extreme test items, and tried out. He may have had and tested each and any idea in vogue in his time. We have the benefit of hindsight, but he just tried things that were even doubted then (see the Monitor notice from Grid Leaks) so finally he knew about them and didn't depend on other people's opinion. That's why he changed his mind effortlessly, as it may seem to us.

Now if I want to comprehend his thinking and development and even want to simulate the test flight experiences, I have to know the relevant characteristics of his models - not only ballpark but exact figures. (Think of wing planform, dihedral, tail moment arm, stab size, rudder rake, ...) That's the "Holy Grail" I'm in search of. We've got quite far here (see post #1161).

I don't know what to say exactly...you guys are getting too "technical" for me.

If I try to measure the "Cover Girl", as PIMMNZ likes to call it, I'll get slapped for sure. Now on the other hand, I'll try to take full measurements of the "MAN Taurus", or "NATS Taurus", or "1963 W/C (3rd place) Taurus" when I finally get the opportunity. I have already prevailed upon the VR/CS president once asking for measurements, and I don't want to "push" our limited relationship. He lives in New York state, so I'll have to wait for September of this year to actually see the most famous Taurus. I will enter the figures he sent me again below.

I had the Taurus-2 returned to me a couple days ago, so I will take full measurements of it soon.

I just became the high bidder on two more pieces of "Ed-o-belia" from his estate. The first was Ed's final airplane that he assembled relatively recently, late in life as he was considering a renewed interest in R/C. The plane is a aluminum/corrugated plastic contraption with all the servos/and fuel tank hanging out, that both Chuck Noble and I thought might have been an original design he put together from his shop. Instead we later learned the little "contraption"was commercially available; I recently saw one at a regional swap meet. It looks in pristine condition, as if Ed built and finished the plane's construction, but then simply decided not to fly it. It's basically RTF, with a modern Futaba radio, and .45 ST 2-stroke engine. It might still be listed on e...y under Kazmirski.

The other item was his first 1st place win 1957 Great Lakes Invitational trophy, which he kept for 50 years. This trophy obviously meant a lot to Ed...I don't know if any other modeling awards of Ed's were retrieved from his estate. The Radio Control Club of Detroit was my home club when I started out, so the trophy might mean more to me than most people. I was the only bidder.

Well, I'm sitting here with my flu and guess what? A package arrives after flying over the pond. It took it's time because it's from about 1960 and driven by propellers. As it should be, it has four propellers and even one smaller as a backup. In the moment I'm feeling much better. Duane, you've made my weekend and even more, thank you very much!

As to my last post, the last three paragraphs were meant to explain why I'm doing what I'm doing. I tried to say "non-technically" how Ed K. developed his models, that therefore are so many different wings and fuses, and that I'm trying to figure him out. Would be great to have measurements, but not worth pushing anything. Technically, we'll get quite far even if we're on our own.

What "Cover Girl"??

In September, at the VR/CS 4-day event including the ceremony where the Taurus is officially given to the museum, I will ask to keep the "Cover Girl" overnight, (alone...just the two of us), with me in the motel room, so I can take detailed measurements of her...(it)....against the wall...if the room is big enough. [8D]

It seems to me, that if you have plans for the original prototype, (the Myer plan), that it would be natural to want to build the prototype in an exact way from those plans. You would have, in effect, the exact same Taurus that Ed first flew on Thanksgiving 1961, as well as all those "friends of Ed" had for the summer of 1962, (before the kit came out later). I don't know why anyone with those plans, (wanting to build a scratch Taurus from them), would modify them. As I remember, the kit plan is essentially an inch longer, and most closely compares to the '62 NATS Taurus.

Still it would put the final touches on the "statistics" of that most famous of Ed's planes, and allow comparison with the various plans out there.

Direct measurement dimensions given by VR/CS president:

Here are the dimensions;

1) The length on the fuse bottom between the back of the wing bay, and where the tip of the fuse meets the rudder. 27"
2) The distance from the tip of the nose to the leading edge of the wing bay. 8 1/4"
3) The width of the horizontal stab from tip to tip. 27"
4) The fuse width, (outside to outside) of the halfway point between leading and trailing edges of the wing bay. 3 1/4"

Hope this helps

Duane

Yes, helps a lot. Most likely, that means the horizontal stab (and even the wing) and the front fuse are standard MAN/kit plan, but the tail cone is 1" longer than even in the MAN/kit plan. As Ed said, "... one inch longer tail cone ... no modifications other than that". [8D]

You're welcome Burkhard. Now that everyone has their packaged "surprise", I can tell you a little more. During my discussions with Chuck, he told me Ed had kept a number of original props. He even suggested that the primary contributors to this thread might like to receive one of Ed's props as a little souvenir of the experience...I thought that was a great idea.

As time went by, it became obvious that Chuck had become swamped in his auction business, so I wrote Chuck, bugging him about the props....a couple times. Finally he decided it might be in his best interest to simply sell me ALL of Ed's props, (37 I think), and I would be the one to send out the souvenirs.

Upon receiving them it was intersting to see some of Ed's characteristics, (mannerisms). He would hand-write the pitch of the prop on the hub, as many of the props either didn't have this info, (or he had removed it while balancing the props, and revarnishing them). Several of the the props were "specialized", meaning he took a larger prop, (12" ), and cut them down, while sanding them to a finished look.

Of the 37 props, soem were used and others brand new. I don't know which is more valuable, since a used prop of Ed's is something in itself. It's also interesting that 8 or 9 of the 37 props were cracked, (not broken off). I don't know what this shows about Ed, (I throw my cracked props away, but nowadays I use APC props...they shear off and don't break), except he may have thrown them all in one place and forgot about them. I'm sure he was not thinking about us and our souvenir props at the time. Since I had these 9 cracked props on my hands, why not "share the joy", so each person also received a cracked Kazmirski prop.

Props were of several sizes from 10X6 to 12X8. I was surprised at the number of 12" props considering the engines of the time. A 12" prop was a lot for an older .60 to swing. The most common size was 12X6, 12X6.5, and 12X7, but there were an appreciable number of 11 and 12X4. This shows Ed was like many of us ..constantly experimenting with props to get the right combination. It's interesting that the 12X4 props show he is trying to improve vertical in maneuvers, while slowing the speed in straight flight.

Guys, enjoy your props.

Duane

Interestingly, of the 37 props, about 8-9 of them