UStik,
For my reaction I go back to the thread : Ed Kazmirski’s Taurus.
I recognize any Taurus so when I did see your pictures of your posts 1120 page 45 and post 1142 on page 46 of the thread of Ed Kazmirski’s Taurus I did see immediately you are manipulating the pictures.
Of course the reason I know and you know!
I speak about the picture with the both front sides of the fuselages above each other and the black surface in top side.
Result of that manipulation is, it looks like the height of the fuselage of the Taurus of Duane Wilson is 6 inch in front of the canopy , near the LE of the wing. (bottom position fuselage on the picture)
The last time we see the same picture again was 3/31/2009, but now without the dimensions in post 1155 page 47 and the text:
ORIGINAL: UStik
That would be good, but most important seem the wing saddle length, from there to fuse tip (i.e. check your former measurement), and the wing chord length. There is some incertainty/inaccuracy in these big dimensions so your check could calibrate the picture measurements.
Don't expect too much error in the smaller dimensions, especially the vertical ones. The picture is un-distorted to (at least nearly) true dimensions, compare original and undistorted pictures. Of course, checking won't hurt.
The MAN cover picture is dimensioned here for comparison with the other dimensioned pictures and plans. Incertainties/inaccuracies neglected (e.g. due to fuse dimensions slightly tilted and not quite parallel), several dimensions are measured with the wing saddle / root chord length as benchmark.
If it is assumed to be 12", the other dimensions match those in the picture in post #1142. So this could be an indication that the distance from wing saddle to fuse tip is really 28". On the other hand, assuming the wing saddle to be 11.5" makes this distance 27" which was measured on the real model. Another reason to check.
The pictures in #1120, #1128, and #1142 are amended.
Because I did reconstruct my Oldest Taurus on Earth within a accuracy of mm’s, 2 % for the value we are talking about now, I know the height of the fuselage on that position and that isn’t 6 inch.
Of course you know that also but, did you know the height is mentioned in one of the posts of Ed Kazmirski’s Taurus thread?
The result of your picture deformation is 17 % on the location of that value, too much to give it a qualification of a fault, but enough to say: “For me you are out of the game!”
I did archive the posts and pictures for the future. I do not copy these pictures in this post!
Cees
Andy I prepare an answer for you, takes a day, a part of your answer is this post!