Once upon a time, when I was a university lecturer in aerospace engineering, I used to have students model and validate their models on old military aircraft. I used to have the students use available drawings, reverse engineer them with ESDU data sheets, then we'd pull the Boscombe Down flight test reports to validate their modelling.
With regard to sets of detailed technical specifications - the crew manuals are the best you'll get at this distance. For aerodynamic shape, frankly, buy the best Airfix kit available and reverse engineer it. We've been known to do that in universities - build the kit, fill it with cement, stick it in the wind tunnel.
There are bits of software like AAA that'll do a good job from your measurements of estimating all of this for you, but to be fair, it might not do such a good job on something relatively exotic like the "coke bottle" Bucc. Much cheaper, and surprisingly good, is X-plane.
dCl/dAoA, Cl.max - those are from wind tunnel results on a whole airframe model, Cdmin is a bit irrelevant - what you actually want there is Cdo, and the Oswald span efficiency factor - from that and standard results you've got the full drag polar; Cd.min is of-course 2Cdo by standard result. Pitching and rolling moment coefficients: in reality the first order derivatives are probably long lost from company archives - you might reverse engineer them from Boscombe Down reports, or again from a model and an ESDU transonic design pack. You want the BDN reports anyway, but I think that either borrowing a teaching wind tunnel and using an airfix kit on a sting, or using ESDU are most likely to work.
G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 5th Apr 2016 at 16:51.