[Milsurplus] The Gas receiver

[WF2U]

Barry et al,

By "functional equivalent" I thought you meant "mission equivalent" but as
far as we're looking strictly at the functionality of these radios
circuit-wise and supply voltage options, yes, you're right.
Deployment of the R209 however started somewhat earlier than the GRR-5 by
maybe a couple of years. BTW I have an R209 MkII (12 V version).

The R210 is more like the R-808 circuit-wise although it has a built-in 24
VDC to B+ inverter whereas the R-808 has a built-in 24 VDC supply if powered
from 115 VAC. The R-808 tubes are run with 24 VDC on the plates a la R-392,
and it also has a built-in RTTY receiving converter module which the R210
doesn't have.
Otherwise neither receiver has any similarities to the R-392 Collins style
conversion scheme. The R210 is smaller than either the R-808 or the R-390 -
it's somewhat larger than the R209 and has no internal speaker. The R210 has
a nice audio filter you can switch in for CW reception. I have a nice
specimen in good working condition - I hope to get the C11 transmitter and
the rest of the accessories one of these days to put together the "Station,
R210/C11"  - as it's called in the UK...

I don't know why the Marine Corps contracted for  the GRC-14 (R-808 rx/T-631
tx) when the GRC-19 was available around the same time. The GRC-14 was
heavier, the transmitter was more complicated and had a separate - big and
heavy -  power supply, and the R-808 was inferior to the R-392.

I own another short-lived Marine Corps radio: the GRC-13. This is somewhat
similar in circuitry to the GRC-9, in its power output, tube lineup and
frequency range, but it's  only crystal controlled in 10 channels in a
water-proof case, the size and shape factor reminding somewhat of the TBX.
It takes the same voltages as the GRC-9 and has somewhat similar accessories
but the power connectors are different.

It may have been pork in both the GRC-13 and GRC-14 cases?

73, Meir WF2U

-----Original Message-----
From: Barry Hauser [mailto:barry@hausernet.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 10:12 PM
To: wf2u@starband.net; Marty R's GI-stuff haunt; kargo_cult@msn.com;
milsurplus@mailman.qth.net
Cc: cteet70@aol.com
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] The Gas receiver

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