[Milsurplus] RAK/RAL usage

Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:56:04 -0500

LO re-radiation was, and still is of very high concern on a lot of =
military
platforms. It was certainly one of the main reasons for the use of the =
TRFs
during WWII. Someone else will have to answer the availability =
questions. LO
re-radiation is still of a major concern today as higher sensitivity and
lower noise figure receivers are in use so vulnerability (detection) =
range
of a leaky LO has to be minimized. I remember working on some airborne
surveillance receivers in the mid 80's where specially designed RF front
ends with extremely high reverse isolation had to be used to keep the LO
level at the antenna below some specified very low level. 73 - Mike   =20

=20
Mike B. Feher, N4FS
89 Arnold Blvd.
Howell, NJ, 07731
732-901-9193
=20
=20

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Robert Goff
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 10:27 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Milsurplus] RAK/RAL usage

I was wondering if anyone could confirm some particulars on the usage =
and=20
distribution of RAK/RAL sets.  I've been told they were used in all=20
submarines through the end of the war, rather than being replaced with=20
RBA/B/C sets in '45 as was done in many other ships.  The impression I =
got=20
was that this was done because of concerns over reradiation by=20
superheterodyne LO's but, are there other factors as well that played =
into=20
this as well?  Availability?
Thanks,
Robert
W7MKA

_________________________________________________________________
Get some great ideas here for your sweetheart on Valentine's Day - and=20
beyond. http://special.msn.com/network/celebrateromance.armx

_______________________________________________
Milsurplus mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus