[Milsurplus] RAK/RAL usage

[Al Klase]

Goff anf The Group,

The RBB and RBC both had two RF stages and were late
designs.  I suspect that LO radiation was reasonably under
control.  RBA was a TRF.

In the case of submarines, I think the problem was space.
You'd need three boxes, RBA, RBB, and RBC to get about the
same coverage as RAK/RAL.  The RAL works surprisingly well
for CW on HF, and is probably the high-water mark for
short-wave autodynes.  Yes, the RBB and RBC were
outrageously good receivers, but the frequency split is 4
MHz, so you need both of them.

Al

Robert Goff wrote:

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


-- 
Al Klase - N3FRQ
skywaves@webex.net
Flemington, NJ 08822
Web Page:  http://www.webex.net/~skywaves/home.htm