[Milsurplus] The Gas receiver

Sun, 2 Nov 2003 22:12:25 -0500

Hi Meir:

I didn't mean to convey that the R209 was intended as the functional
equivalent of the AN/GRR-5.  Maybe "functional" wasn't the right word -- and
I was not attempting to reconcile the exact  time frames of manufacture and
deployment..

However, sitting on the bench, 50 or so years after-the-fact, the R209 is in
many ways similar to the AN/GRR-5 in terms of equivalent tube complement,
and I would guess performance as well as frequency coverage, modes, power
supply options, etc.  True, construction style is very different and the
R209 is a much more compact, but there are definite areas of similarity.

Again, on the bench, in terms of design, the R209 is certainly closer to an
AN/GRR-5 than it is to an R-392.  I'm not as familiar with the R210, but a
quick web search tells me it is also a single conversion receiver, albeit
with a film dial and covers something like 2-16 MC in seven bands.  Neither
of these receivers bear much resemblance to the R-392 with it's 1-MC bands,
dual/triple conversion, tube lineup, tuning (slug rack/linear PTO) design,
etc.

>From a functional-intention or "mission" standpoint, apparently we can't
directly compare the Angry-5 to anything directly as it's original purpose
is a bit foggy and, according to current reports, it was primarily
commissioned to fill a pork barrel.  So, it would seem to render it
irrelevant as to whether or not it was supposed to be mounted in the back of
a jeep alongside a matching transmitter, and so on.

On a more general level, they are all little green radios that have a way of
turning up here, though the R209 MkIII was more detemined as it had to cross
the Atlantic -- against prevailing headwinds no less.

Of course, there's also the Marine Corps version of the R-392, the R-808 --
but it's quite different -- film dial, no counter, built in TTY demodulator,
some of the same tubes, but an altogether different shade of green.  Might
have been some pork involved in that one -- not as good as an R-392 -- and
why should the Marines have a different rx (and tx)?  Why not order another
couple of thousand '392's, but that's another story.

Barry

----- Original Message -----
From: "WF2U" <[email protected]>
To: "Barry Hauser" <[email protected]>; "Marty R's GI-stuff haunt"
<[email protected]>; <[email protected]>;
<[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 7:53 PM
Subject: RE: [Milsurplus] The Gas receiver

> Correction regarding the  UK R209receiver: it is NOT a functional
equivalent
> of the GRR-5. It is the receiver which was used in conjunction with the
> Wireless Sets 53 (250 W transmitter) and 76 (10 W transmitter) after WW2,
> replacing the earlier, wartime R107 and R109 receivers in these systems.
> By the  50's these radio installations were superceded by the R210
> receiver/C11 transmitter (80 W  AM/CW) combo, which was the functional
> equivalent of the
> US  R-392/T-195 (GRC-19) receiver-transmitter system. BTW later on there
was
> an SSB version of the R210/C11 station.
>
> 73, Meir WF2U
>
> Landrum, SC
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Barry Hauser
> Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 6:12 PM
> To: Marty R's GI-stuff haunt; [email protected];
[email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] The Gas receiver
>
>
> -- There is a UK functional equivalent. I don't know if they were also
> intended (or sold as) "gas radios".  It's the R-209, with Mark II and III
> versions.  Less than 1/3rd the size of a GRR-5 setup.  Similar frequency
> coverage and the later models were multi-voltage.  Trap door to protect
the
> built in speaker against moisture and maybe concussion as well.  No detent
> setup.
>
> -- Even though it has a waterproof, blast-resistant speaker, the GRR-5
sound
> quality is decent, whereas the otherwise similar outboard LS-166's (and
> others like it), the external speaker for the GRC-106, R-392, and the
GRR-5
> (among others) sounds downright poor.
>
>  Any thoughts, observations on all that?
>
> Barry
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Milsurplus mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
>