Subject: SMML VOL 1615 Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 00:11:34 +1100 SMML is proudly sponsored by SANDLE http://sandlehobbies.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: seasons greeting 2: Newbie question about magnifiying binoculars 3: paper rulers vs metal 4: Re: .50 Browning Cooling Jackets 5: Re: .50 Browning Cooling Jackets 6: Re: Scale Rulers 7: Progress on the Scale Rulers 8: Scale rulers 9: Re: Scale Rulers 10: new manufacturer? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: "Andrew Jones" Subject: seasons greeting Hapy Easter to all & enjoy those 4 days you have off to work on those kits!!! lol Andrew oz -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: "Rick Schiller" Subject: Newbie question about magnifiying binoculars Hi to all, I'm new to modeling (sort of) after a 40 year break. My vision isn't what it used to be. Can anyone recommend using magnifying binoculors or the magnifying lights? Advantages/disadvantages to each and any particular recommended brands? best Rick Schiller www.rickschiller.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: "Ian Archer" Subject: paper rulers vs metal I would like a 1/700 scale ruler but not a paper one. I found that investing in good quality tools is better than making do with cheap ones. A quality tool lasts a life time and its a pleasure to work with. Ian -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: ALROSS2@aol.com Subject: Re: .50 Browning Cooling Jackets >> This is somewhat off topic. I have always had some misgivings about the term cooling jacket. To air cool a gun barrel better basic physics would have required that the surface area of the barrel be increased. But if you look at the cooling jackets the only contact the cooling jacket has with the barrel is at the front end of the jacket. This is hardly enough contact area to draw away enough heat to make a difference to cooling. The function of that jacket seems to me more for keeping the hot barrel from scorching anything it touches than it is for cooling. << From the "horse's mouth" so to speak (Tech Manual 9-225 Browning Machinegun, Cal. .50, Aircraft, Basic, 15 December 1943, p.25 ) "...The barrel jacket is perforated to permit air to blow through onto the barrel for cooling purposes. During operation of the gun, the jacket is stationary, and prevents any object from interfering or rubbing against the barrel which moves during firing." Also, the "retracting slide group" (cocking handle assembly) could be fitted to either side of the receiver. Al Ross -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: Edd Pflum Subject: Re: .50 Browning Cooling Jackets Kelvin wrote: >> This is somewhat off topic. I have always had some misgivings about the term cooling jacket. To air cool a gun barrel better basic physics would have required that the surface area of the barrel be increased. But if you look at the cooling jackets the only contact the cooling jacket has with the barrel is at the front end of the jacket. This is hardly enough contact area to draw away enough heat to make a difference to cooling. The function of that jacket seems to me more for keeping the hot barrel from scorching anything it touches than it is for cooling. In fact photos of the same guns used in combat without the jacket is not uncommon. << Kevin, I have absolutely no personal knowledge of this (I've touched a .50 a couple of times, but never fired or field stripped one) but I'll make an educated guess based on past (dimmly remembered) research. The Browning M2 operates on a short recoil principle. The barrel reciprocates as the weapon fires. I suspect the cooling jacket (for want of proper nomenclature...perhaps "barrel shroud" is better) supports a bushing for the front end of the barrel. I believe the pictures of weapons without the long perforated jacket are the M2 HB (Heavy Barrel) version. The M2 HB has an abbreviated jacket that (I suspect) holds the bushing much closer to the breech end of the barrel, replacing the long jacket. The barrel of this version is much heavier (thicker) than the aircraft version. This allows it to absorb the heat load of sustained firing, and is also quickly replaceable (barrel life is shorter with sustained firing). The M2 HB was used on the .50 cal. MG / 81mm. Mortar (over/under) combo used on Viet Nam era craft. The aircraft version is cooled by the motion of the aircraft. There is also the water-cooled version that we all know so well from pre-war installations. The .30 Browning ( M1917 water-cooled, and M1919 air-cooled...got that wrong last time) originated the basic pattern of the Browning machine guns. I suspect a bushing was placed at the from of the M1917 water jacket because "it was there", and to serve as a gasket. When the air-cooled version was developed, the perforated jacket was introduced to support the bushing. The water-cooled ,50 appears to have pre-dated the air-cooled in this caliber as well. The water-cooled .30 was considered a "Heavy Machine Gun" when introduced, because it good fire long, sustained bursts without overheating (and jamming.) The air-cooled was a "Light Machine Gun". The advent of the .50 changed this, obviously. Other machine guns used concentric fins (Japanese come to mind) to increase cooling, and I think the Lewis Gun had longitudinal fins. On ground-based Lewis gun, the fins were protected by a cylindrical shroud, giving the appearance of a water-cooled weapon. On air-based Lewis Guns, the shoud and fins were removed, leaving the bare barrel. WW1 aircraft versions of the German Maxim and Hotchkiss MGs had holes and vents cut in their water jacket (no water, of course.) The only reason I can think of for retaining these jackets is that they formed part of the structure of the weapon. This is all from memory / deduction, so if anyone has better information, please chime in. Edd -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: "Kathy/Pirie Sublett" Subject: Re: Scale Rulers Since I started the thread on scale rules, I thought I ought to come back in to say I didn't realize what a cord it seems to have struck. I also add my voice in thanks to Steve Wiper's uncommon generousity. Forgive me, I didn't record who suggested printing Steve's rules on plastic, but it's a great idea, and I will probably choak the whole office's system trying it. But for certain things, there is no substitute for heavy metal, and I'll be in that market, too. Of course, manufacturers, once we all have our scale rules, watch out! Be off a 1/700 foot, and there'll be hell to pay -grinnnnn. That's a joke. Humor. Ar-ar-ar. But really, thanks to everybody for a lot of good ideas. Pirie Sublett San Diego USA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: SteveWiper@aol.com Subject: Progress on the Scale Rulers I have designed eight (8) scale rulers as of this date. They are to be used for measuring around really tight bends and angular shapes in model construction. NOTHING ELSE!!! Each ruler is eight (8) inches in length, as I dont think there will be too many instances where a longer measuring device will be required, if you refer to the above rules. If you do not abide by these rules, I, meaning Classic Warships, am not responsible for the consequences you may suffer. Rulers completed to date are; Metric English 1/700 1/500 1/400 1/350 1/192 1/96 If you dont see "Your Scale" on this list, keep your pants on, I plan to do a lot more, INCLUDING 1/72! Soon Shane and myself will magically span the hemisphere's, not "Hand me another beer" (cellular phone static), and do a "TEST RUN" of these exquisite measuring devices. If this whole "der Downloadableruler" thing works out, then I will release the sets to the SMML web site. Steve Wiper -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: Kelvin Mok Subject: Scale rulers >> The rulers I am going to make for the free download from the SMML are for measuring on small tight curved or angular surfaces that cannot be done with the conventional rulers available. They are for measuring short distances. That is why they are only 8in. long. I will see if I have the time to do all these different scales. << Steve, While on the subject of scales is it possible, when there are line drawings or plans in your books, to publish them in a standard scale so that we can easily scale them to whatever size we need. If that's not possible then at least include a scale line somewhere to mark off the dimensions as on the full size ship. Thanks. Kelvin Mok -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: Minadmiral@aol.com Subject: Re: Scale Rulers Hi; How about scale rulers in 1:120, 1:600, 1:1200, 1:2400, and 1:6000? I already have one in 1:1000. Chuck Duggie WoodenWalls Listmeister eGroups : WoodenWalls Naval wargamer, amateur naval historian, and ship modeler -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: PXGOLLIN@ctrl.co.uk Subject: new manufacturer? Whilst looking on the Hannants' website I noticed that they had in their "future" section, 6 new 1/350th scale Arleigh Burke destroyers (2 each "I", "IIA" and "IIB" from a firm called PANDA (no details on costs or dates). Does anyone know anything about these kits, or the manufacturer? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the SMML site for the List Rules, Backissues, Member's models & reference pictures at: http://smmlonline.com Check out the APMA site for an index of ship articles in the Reference section at: http://apma.org.au/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume