[ARC5] RME As Aircraft Radio (?!?)

[Geoff]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Knoppow" <1oldlens1 at ix.netcom.com>
To: "Geoff" <geoffrey at jeremy.mv.com>; <Arc5 at mailman.qth.net>; "MWM" 
<military1944 at aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 7:29 PM
Subject: Re: [ARC5] RME As Aircraft Radio (?!?)


>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Geoff" <geoffrey at jeremy.mv.com>
> To: <Arc5 at mailman.qth.net>; "MWM" <military1944 at aol.com>
> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 12:48 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARC5] RME As Aircraft Radio (?!?)
>
>
>> Subject: Re: [ARC5] RME As Aircraft Radio (?!?)
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> There's a very nice example of the 1935 RME-69 receiver and RME DB-20
>>>> preselector
>>>> now on ebay at http://www.ebay.com/itm/400329273964 .  A bit pricey, I
>>>> think.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> I have a nice example of the rx and preselector. I really must try them
>>> out one day.
>>
>>> Ben G4BXD, GB0MWM
>>
>> The RME-69 is a prime example of how not to design a radio if you want 
>> good
>> performance over its full tuning range. With only one RF stage it still
>> needs help above 14 MHz and the sales literature suggested 2 more stages
>> from the DB-20 to amplify even more noise and reduce strong signal 
>> handling
>> ability.
>> The major reason for the poor performance is almost no padder and trimmer
>> adjustments plus rats nest wiring resulting in low gain and a higher 
>> noise
>> figure than a lot of its competition.
>>
>> Put it alongside a HRO, NC-100XA, NC-101X, or other contemporary radio.
>>
>>
>    National stuff was built to very superior standards. Its also obvious 
> that the HRO was well ahead of its time in design.  The use of a pentode 
> rather than a pentagrid or hexode as mixer would result in significantly 
> lower noise.
>
>
> --
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles
> WB6KBL
> dickburk at ix.netcom.com



RME used the same tubes as the HRO, even in late production except with a 
few octals in later stages