Dear ScaleBirdsScott,I've thought about something like a 3/4 scale Wildcat quite a bit. And let's be honest, 3/4 Wildcat is more-or-less around a 50% warbird anyway so...
I guess one thing I wonder is how much do people seem to care about a nice round-number scale factor? It never made much sense to me to live with certain constraints just to keep the scale at 1/2 or 3/4 or 5/8. If it's actually 53.7% scale that's fine by me.
You are showing your age.
You cute little puppy.
Hint: I love playing with puppies.
Exact half-scale was easier to calculate before electronic pocket calculators were invented (early 1970s).
People who insist on rigidly sticking with a simple fraction are just showing their age.
I was born in 1957 and graduated high school in 1974 when teachers were loudly debating banning pocket calculators from final exams because they were considered "cheating."
Now you just type in a constant when down-sizing from original drawings.
Mind you, some of the originals lacked stability and were difficult to maneuver, so smart modern designers enlarge control surfaces, adjust airfoils, angles of incidence and shift centers of gravity to tame flight characteristics. Fore example, they poster who is currently drafting a sub-scale replica of a Focke-Wolf Ta-152 would be wise to modify its wing airfoils to tame the originals' abrupt stall ... with flaps up.
Yes, all those Walter Mitty types think they want an exactly half-scale replica, but most only have the flying skills acquired during recent lessons in "tame" Cessna trainers. Ergo, the better flying sub-scale replicas are more "stand-off scale."