Vlg dating

vlg dating-72
) few could have foreseen the day when, 10 years later, he was to occupy all but a fraction of the same building.The foundation of this success - and his Company's rise to pre-eminence amongst the then many competing makers of small lathes - was a range of just four machines: the ML.1, ML.2, ML.3 and ML.4, all designed and priced to appeal to the model engineer with the ML1 and ML3 being the cheaper, less-well-specified versions. With a standard-fit 6 : 1 ratio backgear they did not differ greatly in quality or accuracy from any number of other pre-WW2 competitors*.

) few could have foreseen the day when, 10 years later, he was to occupy all but a fraction of the same building.The foundation of this success - and his Company's rise to pre-eminence amongst the then many competing makers of small lathes - was a range of just four machines: the ML.1, ML.2, ML.3 and ML.4, all designed and priced to appeal to the model engineer with the ML1 and ML3 being the cheaper, less-well-specified versions. With a standard-fit 6 : 1 ratio backgear they did not differ greatly in quality or accuracy from any number of other pre-WW2 competitors*.

A catalogue for the latter types appeared in November 1941 and another (with 7,500 printed) in March 1943.

The 1941 publication contained an official (of the war) the basic ML.1 and ML.3 types would be withdrawn from sale.

Like many contemporary small lathes the guarding of belts and gears was either rudimentary, or non-existent.

However, by the late 1930s, several designs of changewheel cover appeared, obviously in search of a simple but economical solution and at first were offered as an option - 7/6d buying the first type, a rather crude hinge-up affair that lacked an inner cover.

Although by 1938 the ML.2 and ML.4 models were being listed as - (at 7 : 0s : 0d and 9 : 10s : 0d ) the precise specification of the latter could only be deduced, from the maker's literature, by what was omitted relative to the former.

However, two important differences were that early versions of the ML.1 and ML.3 (until approximately 1941) appear to have been made with the headstock and bed cast "as-one" while the ML.2 and ML.4 both had a bolt-on headstock - at first with the front pair of securing bolts having their nuts at the top (very rare) but later underneath.

By 1943 the flat cross-slide end plate had been change for a step-out one that resembled those to be fitted on the later ML7 - this new fitting enabling the slide to move inwards by an extra inch or so and so become rather more useful when using a vertical milling slide; unfortunately this fitting is hardly ever found, the writer having seen only a couple of examples.

Incidentally, the run-direct-in-the-headstock spindles tend to last far longer than the bronze type that was a simple, but ineffective marketing ploy.

By 1939 (though it may have been available earlier) a tumble reverse mechanism was being listed (for the ML2 and ML4 only) at 10 shillings extra, or, if combined with the optional 5/8-inch bore spindle with a No. At the left-hand end of the headstock spindle the method of attaching the gear differed according to whether or not tumble reverse was fitted: on non-tumble lathes (i.e.

with a small diameter spindle) it was simply pushed on and connected to the shaft by a small pin passing into the face of a drive collar secured with a grub screw, this method allowing it to be changed in order to assemble the gear train necessary to generate the required thread pitch.

SHOW COMMENTS

Comments Vlg dating

The Latest from oplus-nn.ru ©