Got some more stuff to show here, plus I thought I'd discuss some of the process since this batch has mixed success. I know I've learned a lot from this forum, and I thought I'd throw it out there in case it helps some other paper designers. First, the second generation of Soviet/Russian solid fueled ICBM's:
Here's a couple of closeups: First, the SS-16.
And the SS-20:
The SS-20 is finished. The other two are not, and the reason why is what I wanted to discuss in the post.
First, the SS-20 went through 3 major revisions, all based on the warhead bus. It's a complicated shape, and took 3 revisions to get it right. I finally got it with a solution that was way simpler than I expected. A truncated cone with triangular cut-outs did the job way better than I expected. I'm happy with the solution.
The SS-25 and SS-16 are a different story that hinges on research. I'm going back to the board on both, and the trouble starts with the SS-25. I started the work with a Russian-sourced drawing that matched the dimensions I had for the missile. Although the dimensions were correct in width and length, the individual stages were wrong. I discovered this after designing the structure and searching out detail for the parts, things just didn't look right. I did a test build (what you see in the pictures) and started comparing reference and realized it was wrong, so I did my own drawing of the missile. I reached and found dimension for each stage, and then found a fairly clear telephoto shot of the launch of an SS-25 and sized the photo to the width and height dimensions. The stage dimensions I had correlated exactly to the photo, and gave me a basis for a new drawing. Problem fixed, but now I have to redraw a number of parts.
The SS-16 is a more insidious problem. It's a 3 stage missile much like the -25. The -16 used the same first and second stage as the SS-20, so 2/3 of the rocket is already there. The problem is the 3rd stage and warhead bus. Every single drawing I have is different, and I discovered the dimensions I was trying to work from were wrong. Worse, I discovered that the -16 was either never in service or only very limited service for a short time. Turns out most of the pictures I had were not -16s but -25s, so it's back to a reference search for this.
So there you go. My advice is to check multiple sources of references and check them against photos where possible. Shots with a long lens are best to confirm dimensions, because perspective is less of an issue. Can't get details from these, but you can get an accurate shape in conjunction with accurate measurements. That's a great place to start.