Hello Ivan,
Had known what you were going to reply, I would have refrained from making any comment, and it is by no means the first time you have used these arguments, or very similar ones, and in a similar tone.
"There are a lot more issues that still remain with that AFX that you are working with.
Basically you really can't get a dimensionally correct (by AF99 standards) model using that AFX without replacing EVERY original polygon."
Even if Iīd built a model starting from scratch, which wasnīt my objective anyway, because I specifically wanted to upgrade an existing model, to get a chip off my shoulder from previous experiences of that kind, I would have run into the same problems of adjusting and re-adjusting the model because of the drawings I had started out with in the first place.
If there are still any mistakes in it, they will be small, and will come from all sorts of places apart from myself, and that doesnīt worry me in the least. The elements on the re-worked model are all now sufficiently correctly placed for me to classify it as a successful upgrade, and I am very satisfied indeed, especially taking into account that after all the work I put in, it has come out exceeding my expectations and looking very nice.
"As for references, nearly nothing is new. The documents have been around for decades and most of them date from well before the Microcomputer Era.
The Design Analysis article quoting Larry Bell is from a magazine published in 1943.
The P-39Q-1 Manual was in use during the war.
NACA Report L-602 dates from the same period. (It describes a P-39D-1)
The Russian Manual was written by them when they received their first P-39D-1 aircraft probably around 1941.
The Paul Matt Drawings were published in the 1960s."
Before the Microcomputer time not everyone was so fortunate as to have access the specific information for this model, and what was available on the Internet in 1998 at the time of the original AFX must have been a fraction of what there is now.
"It is really a matter of finding the references and trying to put together a consistent set of data despite the contradictions."
That is far more easily said than done for many people. I for one, am not very good at that, and in view of the devlopments, even people with more expertise can be misled initially.
Anyway, Iīm sure my upgraded model will not be as exact as the one you are building, but that is not the point I was pursuing when I began this exercise. Thanks anyway for the help you have provided.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
Bookmarks