Ok, I'm probably 'asking for it' here, but I'm just going to do it. Anyway, that's the best way to learn, isn't it?
First of all I want to say, Dan, I am extremely impressed with your knowledge of this ship, as well as your knowledge of the IJN in general. The
Taiho is one of those ships that is, once again a magnificent failure on the part of the Japanese. All the more fascinating because there are so few photos of her, etc. She represents in many ways the Carrier equivalent of the Yamato, as a naval super-weapon, but even more shadowy than her battleship counterpart.
Secondly I want to say that if this thread has convinced me of anything, it's that this is a really fabulous kit, and it's now 'next' on my list.
But for that very reason, I feel I must ask this question. In short: 'how do you know?'
Forgive me for being a neophyte, and feel free to 'slap me upside the head' for my temerity. It's just that in my experience I have known plans to be wrong, even original blueprints, etc. I have found something like two or three photographs of the
Taiho, total over the years, none of which would demonstrate the kind of fine-points of dimension that you are discussing here. (of course this only applies to your critiques of accuracy, not to your comments about casting and modeling flaws, etc.) I can tell you that there have been many times both on this forum and on others where modelers have bemoaned with great frustration the discrepancies between the plans they assumed were accurate, and photos of the Actual Ship, etc.
Since it does look like such a great kit, and since some of the things you are talking about by way of correction are going to need some serious surgery, I want to really be sure before I take a knife to that beautiful styrene that the errors in question are beyond doubt. Because if there is a chance that Fujimi got it right I don't want to mess with it.
Ok, well, I've said my peace. Feel free to torpedo me now, frankly I'd be happy for the information. Let me add though, that I am interested in knowing to what extent your sources agree on the relevant dimensional points, and to what extent those sources are based on actual photographs, and or unimpeachable technical requirements (such as, in the case of the elevators, wingspan of relevant airframes, etc.) I'm particularly interested to know whether there are discrepancies between various plans, etc. It's strange to me that Fujimi got so many things right (which you have pointed out) and yet made these glaring errors. Thank you again for your response, and thank you especially for sharing your knowledge with us.