It won't really matter whether it's loaded or not on the angles you see on the plans. Those triangles are all hard-welded at fixed geometry. All of the flex occurs in the triangle formed by Part A, Part B and the shock. You can clearly see the difference here I think, and interestingly the difference exists on both Chilies drawings and Luke's drawings. Chilie got the fork angles right according to Luke's sketches, but both are measurably wider than the plan view. So if we want to be scale, we need to determine which reference angle for the forks is correct. Updated: The more I look at it, I am getting fairly certain that the plan view is incorrect. If you look at the way it's drawn, the pivot point would not be in the right place and the angle between the lower braces and "part B" would be 10 degrees. Both drawings that we have and the reference drawing that Richard posted above have that angle at 20 degrees. I need to validate a few more tings, but I may not have to rebuild afterall. I'm doing some more side-by-side comparisons of photos and drawings this afternoon, so more to come on this later. Updated: I enlarged Richard's drawing to match the size of my build and the geometry is pretty much spot on. The only difference I can see is that I have a little bit more rake in my forks and I have a little bit too much sweep in my downtube. The downtube angle at Part B should be 70 degrees or 110 degrees depending on which side you measure, and I'm at about 115. I don't think I'll deconstruct it to fix that. Also, if my overall length is close, a 2 1/2 inch wheel would be closer to scale. Still wondering if my wheel build may be slightly too large, but if so it's only by about 1/4 inch in Part B.
Tom