Thanks Danny, Thats great. Probably the best input is that since the lack of information, Embellishment is needed, and even at higher end modeling (you) it is also!

I stumbled up on "analytics" thinking something was there, though I'm not algebra/geometry savy I cant see it.

I used the conic curve then broke it at it's tip, then ran a g2 blend on the wider end points and if you bulge it up a bit it can "look" exactly like this shape, though I could never find the points to use to start the conic that would have it end up at the size specified.

Anyway, At some point in life I would like to get some instruction on class A surfacing and become a higher end modeler...Maybe after the kids are well into school. Maybe wishful thinking.

Thanks again for the input :o
Burr

Does a simple arc circle (yellow) with moving verticaly "control points" is less legitim if curve is over the paper curve drawing?
(start arc / center middle was the middle of the total length )

I would construct from Ellipse.

>>>>Does a simple arc circle (yellow) with moving verticaly "control points" is less legitim >>>>>

No i dont think so at this point.

What I was looking for was if the curve itself was some sort of "perfect mathematical representation" that could be found by just looking at the "dimension figures". I didnt do well in triginometry/algebra/geometry in school and sometimes (though everything can be described with the math) simple things are very easy to spot by people experienced in these areas.

The package that this has to be re-created in does Not have "control points" with it's spline tools. So when drawing, it's either a freeform curve, or you need specific "coordinates or pick points". So, I can come close, by tracing the bitmap...But if there was some kind of recognizable structure to the curve, I could place "points" at specific coordinates, then just pick those with the spline tool and the curve would be exact.

So far the consensus is that it is "just a curve".

Thx for the precisions