[Milsurplus] E. H. Scottr RCH or SLR-F?

[Kenneth G. Gordon]

> Hi folks,

Hello, Al. Good to hear from you again.

>     I'm looking for some info on the subject item, I've done a google &
> found quite a bit, but still not sure which model it is, does anyone know
> the differences?

I have had both, and presently own an RCH.

>  It's "vintage military" I guess, as they were used as
> "morale" rcvrs on shipboard in WW-2.

Not true. Those both were used as true communications receivers. The 
morale version has an "eye" tube for tuning and, IIRC, a slide rule type 
dial. I don't remember the Rxx number though. Both the RCH and the 
SLR-F have circular dials with heavy flywheels.

>     Sat. I got an E. H. Scott either RCH or SLR-F, not sure which.

OK. Good find, which ever it is.

> The front panel tag was gone.  In working condx, tho' very dirty.  The
> seller said he had it fired up last Thurs. & no hum, sigs on all bands
> exc. just noise on VLF (with very little ant.).

That might be a clue. I don't think the SLR-F has VLF. I KNOW the 
RCH does.

>  It's mil construction,
> very good, might not need much more than cleaning.  Same freq.s as the
> BC-779/SP-210LX, VLF, no BC band, ~2-23mc.

Sounds like the RCH, so far.

>  I hope to find out
> what the dif . is betw. RCH & SLR-F  - they seem to be the same, but must
> be something dif.

Yes. For one, the RCH is considerably taller than the SLR-F. 
Something on the order of 2 inches or more.  The SLR-F is about as tall 
as an RBL, or HRO.

>  I've seen pix showing the front label in 2 dif places,
> but they've called both an RCH.   Both models have the same freq. coverage
> & overall specs, from what I can find.  I got the RCH manual from BAMA,
> but nil on the SLR-F manual yet.  I"ve seen some differences in the IF can
> construction and the covers, in the pix I've seen.  It does not have a
> cabinet, which apparently was another 40 lbs or so, well shielded for
> minimum radiation, as was the worry back then.

The RCH with cabinet weighs over 100 lbs. The SLR-F, IIRC, weighs 
about 20 lbs less.

> on long.  It's certainly not a communications rcvr,

Yes it is.

> but with it's wide IF

Yup. Weird IF too. Something like 575 Khz.

> should be a good broadcast listener, even with a single-ended output.
> Similar setup to the BC-779/SP-210LX - I had one of them that I re-did abt
> 2 yrs ago, then sold it 'cuz I found another nice one to work on.

OK.

>     I've been poring over the skem, it's a pretty basic design, with some
> measures to reduce radiation from the oscillator.  No BBOD's, but all
> bypass & de-coupling caps are bathtubs, which could be more of a problem
> if they're leaky and I want to go into the "re-stuff" mode.  I'll get some
> pix on a webpage in a few days.

Yup. NO BBODs at all. Almost all bathtubs.

>     Can anyone shed some more light on this neat old item?

I can send you a photo of my RCH, but I don't have a photo of my SLR-
F since I gave it away about 30 years ago, and been kicking myself 
ever since.

As I remember it, the SLR-F had a different IF than the RCH since I 
used a Heathkit Q-multiplier with the SLR-F and the QF-1 would have 
to be modified for use with the RCH.

Again, as I remember it, the SLR-F didn't cover VLF, but "the little grey 
cells" may be soup up there on that matter.

I'll look in my old documents to see what I can find (probably nothing).

In any case, they really are a pretty good receiver. VERY stable, and 
not bad in the sensitivity department either. Selectivity, especially 
according to the standards of today, is abysmal.

I always thought the dial on my SLR-F should have been replaced with 
an Eddystone 898.

Ken Gordon W7EKB