> wrong. This picture (7th AF) clearly shows flange. Makes sense - it's
> a cheap way of joining the halves and why spend bunch on something
> that is going to be discarded?
mounted. Live and learn I suppose. I was rather surpised back in the day
when I first learned that some models of drop tanks were made from pressed
paper composites. There's always something new to learn.
Modelling is one of those endeavors where historical knowledge weighs in
pretty heavy. Unfortunately, that body of knowledge isn't always as full as
we need it to be and sometimes the facts get a little polluted. If we don't
know how something looked or worked we might adopt the convention that it
must have worked roughly the same way as this similar object that we do know
a lot about. After all, we know how some organizations strive for
standardization. Pretty soon that adopted convention gets canonized thru
generations of repetition. That's how seam lines get removed or positioned
correctly for one set of circumstances and incorrectly under another on a
different type of aircraft or shackle design.
Than somebody digs up a picture that challenges conventional thinking and
the headscratching begins in earnest. The guy that was the first to say
"Find a detailled picture of the subject you're modelling and you can't go
too far wrong" was pretty damn close to the truth of the matter. Which means
on that point we're kind of screwed at most turns, given the rather short
life span of photography and the places and events a camera lens likely