You say that YOU have been told no one has made a 'good' F Unit nose? --Pardon me?
Why do you unquestioningly believe this (rubbish) to be true? And without further primary research on your part? All I can do to respond to that is start with a ...sigh!
There actually is an indisputably "good" F Unit nose, and it was done in H0 scale over 20 years ago. Kindly Google: "Highlinersonline.com" please.
Click on the above (and then again!) for some (ahem) enlarging and then do compare with prototype images. Kindly remember, these models are true H0 Scale (Half-"0", as in half-zero) and are only 6 inches long overall.
These models are (were) so good, there now are six or seven Chinese-made "knock-offs" of the contours. Go ahead and try file a copyright lawsuit with that as the reality of the situation!
Now to the matter at hand, the problem with this "Big Stuff" is manifold. Counter intuitive as it may seem, the larger the model the more difficult it is to get it all (contours remember) within acceptable tolerances.
25 YEARS ago, I re-sculpted a commercial 1-1/2" cast aluminum F Unit nose for my friend Scotty Lewis, President of the Chula Vista (Ca.) Live Steamers. It took a LOT of aluminum/epoxy putty and resulted in many clogged rasps, "sure-forms" etc. in order to to get it just right. But now it is right. Hopefully one day, we'll see a beautiful AT&SF Warbonnet F7 running down the tracks there in Rohr Park.
AS to the one pictured: Ed's, well, as Ed did ask, I shall scrutinize: We will keep it (for brevity) to only two aspects of those nose contours.
THE PROTOTYPE: Although as someone has pointed out above, no two F Unit nose were absolutely identical, the results were more a matter of precisely when the locomotives were manufactured as fabrication techniques changed on the shop floor and tooling for the stampings wore and were replaced. As with all things manufactured, there were acceptable tolerances. And using that as the standard as stated, yes there has been a more than "good" F unit made in H0 Scale, as shown above.
The EMD Windshield glass contour was laid out on an X-Y grid map. All "French Curve" stuff that. A set of contours that simply cannot be argued with. But the windshield sweep, rake and droop angles did vary, just no more than 1 degree or so over the production life of the "Bulldog Nose".
That said, the F9 windshields were decidedly (as in 1 degree) more vertical than earlier models. But the nose contours themselves varied no more than the holding fixtures permitted for accurate welding.
Ed's 1/8th scale, F Unit: The thing was bought, so who's fault is it? Well, Ed could have corrected these flaws relatively easily had he desired to make the thing more realistic. Of course one would have to be something of a sculptor to do so, and most train guys simply aren't.
To my eye, there are TWO glaring contour flaws The first are the "Cheek Bones". These are almost horizontal on Ed's model (pictured below and in RED) while they should descend towards the front at a steeper 2-3 degree angle (the A.A.R. "Signal Green" lines depicted at the correct angle). That single modification would significantly change the flow and form of all of the other nose contours.
Also, the top of the nose surfaces flanking the headlight are too convex and should be somewhat less bulbous (that "Signal Green" arc).
To gauge just how much, I'd suggest viewing the nose contours by using the reflected surfaces whenever possible. That is a sculptor's technique not widely known nor discussed. It will reveal the true shape of any object, regardless of complexity!
Both of these aspects are visibly correct on the Highliners F Unit nose and is easily seen (follow those highlights!) with the F3 Phase I nose, pictured above in this response. Both of those photos were taken directly from their website.
There are other detail errors, but correct those two nose-contour features, and the overall model would be significantly enhanced, with a visibly greater accuracy when compared with images of the original, 1939 Art-Deco EMD FT nose form.
--M405
