Quote:
Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II
erm... so if it's a replica in a museum it's fine, whilst if it's a flying replica it needs to be accurate?  |
I needs to be accurate, period. Why you differ here between a museum peice and an active replica is beyond me.
Quote:
You know Hasegawa's Macchi 202? Well the kit was based on the Italian Macchi 202 that is in Vigna di Valle, Italy, the Japanese engineers went there and measured the machine in every corner, then made their kit. What they didn't know is that originally one wing of the Macchi was actually shorter than the other, this to compensate on torque, but the machine in the museum, an empty shell that was recovered from a shooting range (!!!) had only one wing left, so the restorers used the other wing as a template to build the other, ignoring the peculiarity of the different wing length.
As a result, many representations of the Macchi planes are done without this feature. That's why having an accurate and genuine plane from wartime is of vital importance for the sake of historical information and data.
|
So how is it that you know about that wing and the japanese did not? Did another Macchi appear somehwere making this obvious? Or sloppy research by the japanese maybe? I know what you are aiming for, but in all honesty, if you restore such an aircraft and do not do your homework in regards to documentation or visiting original blueprints, then that is based on other factors, not the utter need to preserve an aircraft in all it's details just for the sake of it.