>Why not model a WWI plane that is nearly all original except for the fabric?
>Was it never done that an airplane was built from spares of 2 or more
aircaft
>while in the field? How about the huge flak about the asymetrical ailerons
>we
>had a while back? As quoted above, the restored airplane is very
impressive.
>
>especially with other unusual types of the era so difficult to find.
I completely agree with everything you are saying. The point I was trying to
make, probably clumsily, is that the AFM Caproni may not be a valid airframe.
Nobody knows. It MAY be parts of 2 airplanes, which is fine if they're the
same model, but they may be parts of 2 different variants which never flew as
a unit, but happen to be compatible at the joints. This is probably
meaningless from a modelling standpoint but upsets the hell out of
historians. I doubt if anyone left on earth has the knowledge to determine
how accurate this "original" 1:1 scale model is. The information is gone.
And this is an airplane that was carefully preserved.
We probably have all spent small fortunes on reference material so we can get
it right on our models. Ray Rimell is probably not attaining great wealth,
but he's certainly making a living feeding our hunger for information. But
when you get right down to it, theres always something that can't be verified
for a specific model. I spent a few years in the aerospace business, and
the pace of change is enormous. There is no such thing as a "production
model" airplane, and never has been.
If 5 airframes in a row come off the line with no changes, thats as good as
it gets. So I try to build my models with reasonable accuracy, but I no
longer get upset if it later turns out that I missed something.
Eli Geher