Monty,
The reason that I am advocating that a silicone “negative’, then a silicone “positive” be made is that the “patch” is not substantially stretched or yielded to any extent. The edges and fastener locations are torn, but, a resulting flat pattern, whether from 3D scans or from a “splash” would essentially give the same results.
The silicone contact mold and positive would be (a) quick, (b) cheap, (c) would not damage the “patch” and (d) would not damage any of the surviving candidate aircraft it was offered up to.
Please don’t get me wrong: I am a LONG time CAD user (circa 1984) and the biggest advocate of 3D CAD that you will ever find! The electronic approach has the following drawbacks: (a) it must be performed by skilled technicians (the scanning, modeling, flattening and creating the flat pattern). The scanning cost (equipment, technicians travel , …) is expensive. The software is the same. The patch would have to be scanned. The resulting point cloud would have to be turned into a 3D model. That model would have to be “flattened” manually using the old hand lofting techniques within the 3D CAD application being used or by using flat-patterning software. The surviving Electras (one, or more) would have to be scanned. A 3D reference model from the original design loft drawings would have to be made. Note: The “reference” model would be different than any of the surviving Electras and even AE’s Electra if it was sitting in front of us in pristine condition! This is because of production and manufacturing tolerances.
Since the “patch” was field fabricated we will probably NEVER have any drawings to compare it to! Until the aircraft is found we will never know for sure if it is THE “patch” we think it is! What the rubber model will allow us to determine, with a reasonable amount of certainty, whether or not this could be THE “patch”.
I am only advocating the silicone mold method because it can yield essentially the same results far faster, and cheaper, than using the electronic methods.
Remember: baby steps (Cheap baby steps! --- I’m all about conserving resources for the long haul!). Use the cheap and quick method to see if we are barking up the wrong tree.
If using 3D scanning and CAD is the only way to satify some people I would suggest a short-cut 3D scanning process that would involve a 3D scan of the “patch” and having an elastomeric (rubber) model 3D-printed. The result would be essentially the same as the direct splash and positive model method. I recently read an article where jogging shoes were being 3D printed at some sort of exotic boutique. So, the equipment, processes and material is out there. I’m just not sure how to go about sourcing it.