Using Stine's original MRm drawing, I get 10.08 degrees.
According to SolidWorks the remaining diameter of the cone is 1.5", not 2".
Those are the numbers I got too.
If this drawing was merely an illustration in something like a children's book, or an advertising brochure, I would not be concerned about the discrepencies. Heck, if this drawing (and the seemingly mis-labeled dimensions) was in a management summary volume, it wouldn't surprise me. I could understand 10.1 degrees rounded off to 10. I would not try to read 10.0 degrees out of a labeled dimension that says only "10"
But this is an engineering-style drawing created specifically to document scale geometry. Comparing to the number of significant digits in other dimensions, if the nose conic angle is given as 10 degrees, it may not be correct to stretch this to 10.0 (which has a different mathematical meaning) but it sure is tempting to make that assumption. And an angle of 10.1 (or 10.08) degrees is not the same as 10 degrees.
The 2 inch nose diameter is a pretty clear example of a screw-up. As rocketguy101 already pointed out, this sure does appear to need to be changed to 1.5 inches (1.4995?), or else a whole bunch of the rest of the geometry is screwed up.
I really hate finding these sorts of things in "official" data because it makes me suspect whether ANY of the rest of the dimensions are correct. I have found other self-contradictory scale data on other rockets and even on the X-15....this does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling inside.
Can anyone authoritatively resolve these Nike-Smoke numbers?