Gary
Small world. LOL!
Hosted by Darren Baker
M51 muzzle brake
Chilihead
Joined: July 03, 2002
KitMaker: 626 posts
Armorama: 456 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 03, 2007 - 09:39 PM UTC
Grumpyoldman
ConsigliereJoined: October 17, 2003
KitMaker: 15,338 posts
Armorama: 7,297 posts
Posted: Friday, May 04, 2007 - 05:53 AM UTC
So I'm sitting here, stuffing my face with BBQ Ribs.
But that still hasn't made the answer appear, or any clearer.
I too would like an answer to this most baffling question.
Has all the discussion, and measurements, and drawings been in vain?
or perhaps this is the most logical answer?
Those of us with such lower standards, who never played with real tanks, only weathered 3 hurricanes at sea, and a loverly North Sea Blizzard, and only reached the amazing rank of E-4 upon discharge after several captains masts and court-martials in only 4 years really want to know.
But that still hasn't made the answer appear, or any clearer.
Quoted Text
So what's the finial verdict on this?
I too would like an answer to this most baffling question.
Has all the discussion, and measurements, and drawings been in vain?
or perhaps this is the most logical answer?
Quoted Text
M51 was made in 4 batches. Each time improvements was made so 4 different muzzle brakes.
Then add 3 upgrades also add replaced guns.
Those of us with such lower standards, who never played with real tanks, only weathered 3 hurricanes at sea, and a loverly North Sea Blizzard, and only reached the amazing rank of E-4 upon discharge after several captains masts and court-martials in only 4 years really want to know.
fireontheway
Joined: May 17, 2006
KitMaker: 370 posts
Armorama: 368 posts
Posted: Friday, May 04, 2007 - 07:56 AM UTC
Anchor Clanker, your resume speaks volumes. I would love to hear the real story behind it. But I believe this riddle has been solved.
Quoted Text
I have yet to see, let me say that again.....I have yet to see someone come out with a pair of micrometers or calipers to judge a kit. I hope it never comes to that. So depending on what side of the fence you build on, these answers may or may not help you. Nothing personal with the "anchor clanker" I just came from the Legion, and I was the only "true" regular member there. I need to be around other veterans.That's why I harp on doing one's own research all the time. If people are happy with what they find in the box, then they should just build it and stop whining about rivet counters. If people want to try and build a model as accurate as their skills allow, then they need to do their own research and stop thinking all the answers are the internet. It's just another tool.
Grumpyoldman
ConsigliereJoined: October 17, 2003
KitMaker: 15,338 posts
Armorama: 7,297 posts
Posted: Friday, May 04, 2007 - 08:13 AM UTC
Tim, feel free to call me an anchor clanker anytime! As someone who was given many times 5 gals of white paint, and a gallon of black paint and told by the deck apes(The Ration Gods of Paints)- here's your gray paint- make any color gray you want, I laugh a lot on some of these heavy discussion that go on. But I have noticed the new in thing at IPMS judging is now a seamtress ruler(or stich counter)..... to go along with the flashlight, and dental mirror.
But that's another one of my favorite rants too! 
Chilihead
Joined: July 03, 2002
KitMaker: 626 posts
Armorama: 456 posts
Posted: Friday, May 04, 2007 - 05:12 PM UTC
Chris said that we will have the final verdict early in the week, I am with that. Hell he has gone out of his way just to measure the darn thing. Thanks Chris keep the images rolling. Mrosko
Grumpyoldman
ConsigliereJoined: October 17, 2003
KitMaker: 15,338 posts
Armorama: 7,297 posts
Posted: Friday, May 04, 2007 - 07:47 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Chris said that we will have the final verdict early in the week, I am with that. Hell he has gone out of his way just to measure the darn thing. Thanks Chris keep the images rolling.
I certainly will look forward to seeing them if he has any more updates. I also appreciate him going to the time and trouble of doing this. Having many of his Photo CD's, I can whole heartedly recommend them to anyone. I noticed that he updated his photos with the new measurements back on the 30th of March.
But it still leaves this nagging question hanging unanswered for those with enquiring minds, low standards, and the multitudes of unworthy peons that visit this and other sites asking questions. Sorry boys, but I always believed that was the point of Discussion Groups, and letters to the editor or contributors in written magazines.
Quoted Text
M51 was made in 4 batches. Each time improvements was made so 4 different muzzle brakes.
Then add 3 upgrades also add replaced guns.
So I'm still afraid that perhaps there really is no definitive answer even with pictures and measurements, as the nagging question remains - if - and I do emphasize- "IF" there were 4 batches with 4 different muzzle brakes, and 3 upgrades with an additional 3 muzzle brakes, that means there would be 7 different muzzle brakes used.
Now with Chris's measurements showing completely different measurements from the Accurate Armour's Muzzle brake, which was also reported to be taken from a real M51 and I have no reason not to believe that as anything but also true, leads me to believe the statement:
Quoted Text
is true and is probably the most likely reason for the different sizes, especially between the Dragon and Accurate Armour kits. Unless they both measured the same vehicle, the measurements would naturally be different, as the one they each measured came from probably two different batches, or upgrades. So I'm really afraid this could now join the ranks of OD, Blackened Muzzles, Red Primer, and bugled and flattened tires. Or as I prefer to call it "Personal Interpretation Of Research At Hand". M51 was made in 4 batches. Each time improvements was made so 4 different muzzle brakes.
Then add 3 upgrades also add replaced guns.
Once again I can see no reason to not believe the statement
Quoted Text
as anything but true, as none of the "World Experts" has stepped forward to try to disprove it. M51 was made in 4 batches. Each time improvements was made so 4 different muzzle brakes. Then add 3 upgrades also add replaced guns.
Quoted Text
I have yet to see, let me say that again.....I have yet to see someone come out with a pair of micrometers or calipers to judge a kit. I hope it never comes to that.
Tim, once again, the last two IPMS shows I attended the "New InThing" is measuring with a seamstress stitch counter or ruler. How far behind are the micrometers and calipers?
gbkirsch
Joined: June 04, 2005
KitMaker: 627 posts
Armorama: 455 posts
Posted: Friday, May 04, 2007 - 09:23 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Tim, once again, the last two IPMS shows I attended the "New InThing" is measuring with a seamstress stitch counter or ruler. How far behind are the micrometers and calipers?
Shoot man, I was doing pretty good at these shows until they start that stuff. Next, they'll want me to use an airbrush instead of my trusty paint brushes!!
Gary
junglejim
Joined: February 18, 2003
KitMaker: 1,728 posts
Armorama: 1,629 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 05, 2007 - 04:33 AM UTC
The different 'batches' elsewhere mentioned in this thread have nothing to do with the main gun. The differences were centered around engine and engine compartment and deck changes, with some stowage changes thrown in here and there. (see Tom Gannon's brief article here I would think that such a fairly important and relatively complex item such as the main gun would only be made by one manufacturer, hence they should all have the same size muzzle brake. After all, it's not something a field workshop just whips up and throws on. If you want to believe they were different sizes, fine, but think about it for a bit.
And yes, Gary, I am (slowly) getting the drawings worked on between spring yardwork, girls in soccer, and getting stuff ready for an upcoming model show! Hopefully I can finish them up this weekend. (there, I gave myself a deadline, that's the only way I'll get it done!)
Cheers,
Jim
And yes, Gary, I am (slowly) getting the drawings worked on between spring yardwork, girls in soccer, and getting stuff ready for an upcoming model show! Hopefully I can finish them up this weekend. (there, I gave myself a deadline, that's the only way I'll get it done!)
Cheers,
Jim
Grumpyoldman
ConsigliereJoined: October 17, 2003
KitMaker: 15,338 posts
Armorama: 7,297 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 05, 2007 - 09:04 AM UTC
Quoted Text
The different 'batches' elsewhere mentioned in this thread have nothing to do with the main gun. The differences were centered around engine and engine compartment and deck changes, with some stowage changes thrown in here and there. (see Tom Gannon's brief article here I would think that such a fairly important and relatively complex item such as the main gun would only be made by one manufacturer, hence they should all have the same size muzzle brake. After all, it's not something a field workshop just whips up and throws on. If you want to believe they were different sizes, fine, but think about it for a bit.
Jim, thanks for pointing me in the right direction for understanding the various batches. I bookmarked the page for future reference and understanding. One question cleared up for me.
Like Gary, I'm also looking forward to seeing your drawings, and I'm sure Gary and I are not the only ones. Again I really have no reason not to believe Chris' photos or measurements. And again I has no reason not to believe Mark Hazzard didn't do the same thing when he did Accurate Armour's version. So if both came up with different measurements, resulting in two different size parts, could not there have been two different muzzle brakes, possibly from two different manufacturers in use?
Discounting the Accurate Armour barrel pieces, which certainly looks larger than the original DML kit part, and the new DML part in the photos. Maybe I'm a little dense in this area, but I think I'm reading this correctly:
Quoted Text
When compared to pictures I have, that were again supplied by Jim, the new Muzzle brake captures the shape of the M51’s distinctive brake beautifully, but according to measurements the old one is closer to the right size!
Wouldn't it just be a matter of using the original or older part, (which now seems to be the closest to right size) notching the end to fit the barrel, (Like the new part) and simply removing the cross reinforcing pieces on the top and bottom (for lack of a better word-plates) and replacing them at the proper locations? Perhaps a little building up and needle file work around the front to round out the first baffle a little more? (which appears to be too flat in the parts photos to my eyes)
Kelley
Joined: November 21, 2002
KitMaker: 1,966 posts
Armorama: 1,635 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 05, 2007 - 07:53 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Maybe I'm a little dense in this area, but I think I'm reading this correctly:
Quoted TextWhen compared to pictures I have, that were again supplied by Jim, the new Muzzle brake captures the shape of the M51’s distinctive brake beautifully, but according to measurements the old one is closer to the right size!
Wouldn't it just be a matter of using the original or older part, (which now seems to be the closest to right size) notching the end to fit the barrel, (Like the new part) and simply removing the cross reinforcing pieces on the top and bottom (for lack of a better word-plates) and replacing them at the proper locations? Perhaps a little building up and needle file work around the front to round out the first baffle a little more? (which appears to be too flat in the parts photos to my eyes)
Hi Dave, at this point I would have to say, no you're not reading that correctly. My original statement was based on the fact that the old muzzlebrake was too small and the new one was smaller (and also that I screwed up when converting the measurements I had originally to scale
) When I got Chris's measurements I went back through the process again and this time came up with the numbers I now have; The new muzzlebrake is OK in lenghth and width but is approximately 1mm too short in heighth. So the new MB matches Chris's measurements pretty well, but the old MB was too small according to measurments made back when it came out. I currently have sent an e-mail to a well known expert in this area trying to find out if he knows if there were more than one type of muzzlebrake. I would also be curious to know where Mr. Littlefield bought his M51 from. Could it be possible that sometime in it's history the muzzlebrake was replaced? Mike
Grumpyoldman
ConsigliereJoined: October 17, 2003
KitMaker: 15,338 posts
Armorama: 7,297 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 05, 2007 - 10:29 PM UTC
Thanks Mike.
I think- and that's the key word- THINK I got it now.
New Kit MB is correct in size, the little cross pieces (Baffles?) in right place. EXCEPT 1 MM too short in height. The little reenforcement strips on top and bottom are in correct places.
The original kit MB - which was reported and believed to be too small, but is actually larger than the new one is totally incorrect.
Which can only lead my feeble and senile mind to conclude that the Accurate Armour one -the one time reported to be the greatest since sliced bread one- and appearing to be the largest in the photos is now the most incorrect of the bunch.
So again looking at the photos, and that's all I can do, since I do not have a M51 MB at hand to run out and check, is try to figure a simple way to correct a 1MM in height condition, which comes to 0.03937007874 inches on my scale calculator, or .019685 inches on each side of the center longitudinal plate, not forgetting to take into account the thickness of my wiz-bang Chech razor blade- razor saw, and sanding and adding that to the .019685 needed on each side of the center longitudinal plate.
I think- and that's the key word- THINK I got it now.
New Kit MB is correct in size, the little cross pieces (Baffles?) in right place. EXCEPT 1 MM too short in height. The little reenforcement strips on top and bottom are in correct places.
The original kit MB - which was reported and believed to be too small, but is actually larger than the new one is totally incorrect.
Which can only lead my feeble and senile mind to conclude that the Accurate Armour one -the one time reported to be the greatest since sliced bread one- and appearing to be the largest in the photos is now the most incorrect of the bunch.
So again looking at the photos, and that's all I can do, since I do not have a M51 MB at hand to run out and check, is try to figure a simple way to correct a 1MM in height condition, which comes to 0.03937007874 inches on my scale calculator, or .019685 inches on each side of the center longitudinal plate, not forgetting to take into account the thickness of my wiz-bang Chech razor blade- razor saw, and sanding and adding that to the .019685 needed on each side of the center longitudinal plate.
m4sherman
Joined: January 18, 2006
KitMaker: 1,866 posts
Armorama: 1,808 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 06, 2007 - 12:06 AM UTC
[/quote] Don't even know why I'm wasting the time and keystrokes.[/quote]
Although I think that grumpyoldman can fight his own battles, I was wondering the same thing. The statement quoted was a simplified description of the process for correcting the size issue.
After a close look a the muzzle brakes construction (great pictures btw) it looks unlikely that there would be great variation in size if all were made at the same time or to a set of drawings. Were the muzzle brakes provided by the French? I did not find out if they were in a quick search. If so, wouldn't the unit of measure be metric? The construction was very well done, the parts were cut, formed and welded with precision. This is what you would find in a machine shop enviroment at a factory. Any variation COULD be the result of replacement muzzle brakes being made, or repaired in the repair workshops.
Grumpyoldman
ConsigliereJoined: October 17, 2003
KitMaker: 15,338 posts
Armorama: 7,297 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 06, 2007 - 12:37 AM UTC
Gee Gary, sorry you feel that way.
But if it's really just a simple matter of adding about .5mm to each baffle on the top and bottom of the center longitudinal plate,(again I'm sorry, I really don't know the proper tanker term for this section of the MB) it really doesn't seem to be that difficult a problem for anyone with even moderate modelling skills, a thin Chech razor blade razor saw, to separate the parts, install the .5mm shim to each cross baffle, and glue back together to raise themselves to this higher level and standard I keep hearing about.
After all, isn't that what we are suppose to be trying to do, raise our standards and skills and help each other along the way, or are those higher standards and level just for a select few touting about their higher standards?
I would like to sincerely thank Chris for taking the time to take the photos and measurements and post them on his site. And I would also like to sincerely thank Jim, for pointing me to the site so I could read and understand the various batches and upgrades, and also Mike, so I can now understand whick kit part is actually the closest to start with.
But if it's really just a simple matter of adding about .5mm to each baffle on the top and bottom of the center longitudinal plate,(again I'm sorry, I really don't know the proper tanker term for this section of the MB) it really doesn't seem to be that difficult a problem for anyone with even moderate modelling skills, a thin Chech razor blade razor saw, to separate the parts, install the .5mm shim to each cross baffle, and glue back together to raise themselves to this higher level and standard I keep hearing about.
After all, isn't that what we are suppose to be trying to do, raise our standards and skills and help each other along the way, or are those higher standards and level just for a select few touting about their higher standards?
I would like to sincerely thank Chris for taking the time to take the photos and measurements and post them on his site. And I would also like to sincerely thank Jim, for pointing me to the site so I could read and understand the various batches and upgrades, and also Mike, so I can now understand whick kit part is actually the closest to start with.
fireontheway
Joined: May 17, 2006
KitMaker: 370 posts
Armorama: 368 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 06, 2007 - 02:31 AM UTC
To whom it may concern; I have just read this particular Forum topic from start to its current entry. I entered my 1st comment in the hopes of getting some help, which I did, Thank You. I have since put the MB together & it fits wonderfully. I have noticed that in the time that I received my 1st answer and now, alot of you guys have not gained any ground on this particular subject, while I am almost ready to prime my M51. I guess I am somewhere between an OOB kinda guy with an eye for accuracy, and a novice, wait a minute extreme novice at adding some scratchbuilt items for a more realistic look kinda guy. But it appears this issue is getting some people upset over 1 mm. Gary I appreciate your drive for realism and accuracy, nothing worse than listening to someone who knows absolutely nothing about everything get a case of Diarhea? (I hope I spelled that correctly) of the mouth. But I think your last remarks were, well... 
If someone is going to give advice on this site, understand it might not be received well. Also dont waste peoples advice by asking questions you dont want to hear the answers. OK I'm going back downstairs to build, my MB should be ready to attach to the barrel.
If someone is going to give advice on this site, understand it might not be received well. Also dont waste peoples advice by asking questions you dont want to hear the answers. OK I'm going back downstairs to build, my MB should be ready to attach to the barrel. junglejim
Joined: February 18, 2003
KitMaker: 1,728 posts
Armorama: 1,629 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 06, 2007 - 09:44 PM UTC
Well, at the risk of being unfashionable and pursuing the search for accuracy (ie a nitpicker 
), here's the drawings I made. These are based on the measurements I took off 3 groups of photos found on the Internet: 1) Chris Hughes photos of the M51 from the Littlefield collection 2) JW deBoer's photos of I believe a private M51 as well, not sure the location and 3) Eran Kaufman's photos from an M51 in Israel, Latrun I think. I was only able to put on the measurements given in the photos, so some will have more than others, depending on what the photographer put on the photo. This is purely for comparison. The measurements are given actual size in centimeters, to convert to millimeters divide by 35 and move the decimal one place to the right. eg 51 cm = 14.6 mm (rounded off). I'll leave it up to those so interested to measure up the kit parts for acceptability
Oh yeah, drawings are NOT to scale, just done up by Mk.1 eyeball.
FWIW,
Jim
), here's the drawings I made. These are based on the measurements I took off 3 groups of photos found on the Internet: 1) Chris Hughes photos of the M51 from the Littlefield collection 2) JW deBoer's photos of I believe a private M51 as well, not sure the location and 3) Eran Kaufman's photos from an M51 in Israel, Latrun I think. I was only able to put on the measurements given in the photos, so some will have more than others, depending on what the photographer put on the photo. This is purely for comparison. The measurements are given actual size in centimeters, to convert to millimeters divide by 35 and move the decimal one place to the right. eg 51 cm = 14.6 mm (rounded off). I'll leave it up to those so interested to measure up the kit parts for acceptability Oh yeah, drawings are NOT to scale, just done up by Mk.1 eyeball.
FWIW,
Jim
Grumpyoldman
ConsigliereJoined: October 17, 2003
KitMaker: 15,338 posts
Armorama: 7,297 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 06, 2007 - 09:58 PM UTC
Thank you very much for your time and help Jim.
And again a big "thank you" to the others who took the time to photogragh and measure the MB.
And again a big "thank you" to the others who took the time to photogragh and measure the MB.
m4sherman
Joined: January 18, 2006
KitMaker: 1,866 posts
Armorama: 1,808 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 06, 2007 - 11:51 PM UTC
Jim,
Very well done, thanks for your efforts. When converted to 35th, all the MB's are for all practiple purposes the same size. The variation in the measurements of the three MB's could simply be the normal tollerances decided upon by the designers.
Randy
Very well done, thanks for your efforts. When converted to 35th, all the MB's are for all practiple purposes the same size. The variation in the measurements of the three MB's could simply be the normal tollerances decided upon by the designers.
Randy
toadman1
Vendor
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 1,141 posts
Armorama: 950 posts
Posted: Monday, May 07, 2007 - 09:21 PM UTC
I'm glad my measurements have been helpful. AFAIK, Littlefield's M51 came from the Budge Collection and everything on it is original Israeli production. Since I maybe heading back there this weekend, do we need anymore measurements of it?
Chris "toadman" Hughes
Toadman's Tank Pictures
Chris "toadman" Hughes
Toadman's Tank Pictures
Grumpyoldman
ConsigliereJoined: October 17, 2003
KitMaker: 15,338 posts
Armorama: 7,297 posts
Posted: Monday, May 07, 2007 - 10:16 PM UTC
Chris, I think- (OH OH watch out--- )
I will be able to work out a simple solution with the photos and drawing already posted. If and when my kit ever arrives. Thanks again for your help.
) I will be able to work out a simple solution with the photos and drawing already posted. If and when my kit ever arrives. Thanks again for your help.
This post was removed.
This post was removed.
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.