NavList:

   

Reply

Jerry,

Thank you for posting the photos.  That is a Husun or Hughes sextant.  They 
merged with Kelvin soon after WWII. The serial number on the index arm is not 
a Hughes serial number, which threw me off.  The Hughes serial number was 
often stamped in the arc.  That could be clarified if you post a photo of the 
certificate in the top of the box. 

For the certificate in the box top, it also will be  interesting to compare 
the arc deviations to those on the certificate illustrated in David Morris' 
post.  Note there are no arc errors whatsoever in David's certificate.  That 
was typical of Hughes sextants until WWII, when they started tolerating 
errors of up to a minute of arc.  However, for WWII, they concentrated on 
volume production; the serial numbers increased from 23,000 to 50,000 between 
1939 and 1945.  They had started from 1 in the 1800s.  Hughes also 
concentrated on producing the three-ring "Mate" model sextant during the war, 
which has a 6" arc, not as accurate as the larger open frame in your 
instrument and the one illustrated in David's link.  I would not be surprised 
if they had spent more time perfecting the arc for your model, which would be 
revealed by the certificate photo.

The two shades fit over the ends of the telescope eyepieces.  They are very 
handy for use with an artificial horizon.  The two eyepiece shades are for 
the inverting scope, as you describe.  There should be another installed in 
the star scope (short fat telescope), which also should accommodate the 
shades.  The star scope is installed backwards in photo f12-image.

I would be interested in hearing for what the wires in the inverting telescope eyepieces were used.

Regards,
   
Fred Hebard
mbiew@comcast.net



On Nov 17, 2014, at 5:46 PM, Jerry Gorman wrote:

> Attached photos to clarify previous post
> 
> 
> 
> Attached File: 
> 
> (f11-image.jpg: Open and save)
> 
> Attached File: 
> 
> (f12-image.jpg: Open and save)
> 
> Attached File: 
> 
> (f13-image.jpg: Open and save)
> 
> 
> 

   

Reply