this is steve’s copy
16. Hull cross sections must be rectangular. Fuselage side panel parallel projected planes intersecting with the deck or bottom parallel projected planes shall be 90 degrees, +- 2 degrees from a point 6’’ (153. mm) from the bow to a point 6’’ (153. mm) from the stern. A maximum 1/4’’ (6.3 mm) radius is allowed on the outside top corner of the fuselage where the deck and side panel intersect. Concavities in the deck are not permitted. “
if the wording “rectangular” is removed ,another change is required to be made to description of Deck/Bottom, that change would require that wording to the point that deck and bottom must be flat and not convex . if not , nowhere are the decks and bottom required to be stated so currently. this would open up a new group of building issues to the specificatictions by definition rectangular is define as :
adjective
shaped like a rectangle
having or relating to right angles
mutually perpendicular rectangular coordinates
having a base or section shaped like a rectangle
we have to be very cautious with wording here.
having hull sections required to be rectangular with a tolerance would be as steve’s will avoid this issue and having tolerance here does not discount on intent of “rectanglular”
it might be all as simple as this suggested wording
16. Hull outer surface cross sections must be rectangular +/- 2 degrees from a point 6’’ (153. mm) from the bow
to a point 6’’ (153. mm) from the stern with exception in way of cockpit. A maximum 1/4’’ (6.3 mm) radius is allowed
on the outside top corner of the fuselage where the deck and side panel intersect.
Concavities in the deck are not permitted.
I think this may cover Peter’s intent?
Thinking outside the box my only concern here is: in way of cockpit side panels could be angled or curved in a way (in section) that may have aero implications we are not thinking of….
jk