ellysbro,
Thanks for the reply and information.
I tried enlarging the Paul Matt Drawing, but the lines also got enlarged, and they appeared very wide and fuzzy on the blowup, to the extent that one could not be sure exactly where to measure from.
Yes, this is understandable, and your correct, when the line is thick, where does one begin to measure from? However, I've viewed your 25% Widgeon photos many times, and I must say you did an absolute great job!
Perhaps your software somehow digitizes the lines, (you mentioned vectors), so that they remain a reasonable width when the remainder of the drawing is enlarged.
My ability to pan in and out at will, allows me to zero in on the actual line. Even with these poor resolution drawings, I can be reasonably accurate.
Thing is, I still have to draw each and every line by hand. To do justice, or to arrive at a professional quality 'mechanical," I'll spend close to 30 hours drawing and refining. Makes no since to do these drawings any other way. Reason is, they have to look correct, operate correct and the wheel has to lay flat when retracted, as per the actual aircraft.
I may also draw in and include a way to adjust one strut pivot point, which will aid in accomplishing that "flat" against the fuselage look for the wheel and tire.
the original Paul Matt drawing was 1/24 scale, or 1/2 inch to the foot. It was two large 16 x 22 sheets. In the magazine article and the Historical Aviation Album, it was reduced to 1/48 scale, or 1/4 inch to the foot, so it could fit on two 8-1/2 x 11 inch sheets. I hope that you are getting the larger one?
Yes, yes I am, and rolled.
Al Franklin used a projector to shine the enlarged image on a large sheet of paper on a wall. He then traced the image onto the paper.
Depending on the lenses and the quality of the projector, good accuracy can be had by that method.
Fortunately, I can enlarge photos of drawings to the actual size of the aircraft. After my lines are drawn, I can adjust the scale to my liking, which BTW isn't carved in stone just yet, then my "plotter" can draw the image as accurately as my drawings, and to the scale I set.
I just wish more was available to make my life easier. that is, gear I can purchase out of the box. In my choice of scale, of course.
Anyone else interested in the large "juggs" radials? Anyone know what engine was actually used in Widgeons with radials and what the overall diameter would be? Anyone know what the cowling diameter would be for radials?
Thanks in advance.
Charles
A quick note. This photo was scanned from a line drawing I did over a photo, of a downloaded drawing, of the Bamboo Bomber.
I enlarged the photo to the actual size of the aircraft. Did my drawing then printed it out on an 8.5 x 11. I scanned it back in to place it in a Bamboo Bomber Thread, I'm active in.
Even with second generation, much can be had from the photo. You can even see where I did a drawing overlay of the retract gear. I'm working on this model also.
Big "jugg" radials again.