[Milsurplus] Russian R-311 vs GRR-5

[WF2U]

Ray,

Congratulations on the R-311. It's a fairly nice receiver, with surprisingly
good performance and stability combined with low current consumption. The
wet cell battery is the weak point in the whole shebang, they tend to leak.
I made a nice NICAD pack  to power mine.

According to the R-311 manual and the book "Communications technology of the
National People's Army" (East Germany) by Guenther Fietsch, DL9WSM who was
acommunications officer in the NVA (Nationalen Volksarmee),  the use of the
R-311 is defined as: "service, control and monitoring".
The receiver is portable as a manpack with a backpack kit, but it's also
mounted as a monitoring receiver in vehicular communications systems,
together with the R-118(**) or the R-103(**) transmitter which came in
several versions at power output - depending on the model - of 100, 200 and
400 W, 1 MHz to 12 MHz, CW/RTTY/AM. These systems had a main receiver, the
R-154-2M.
The R-311 could be used to monitor another net or even for
relaying/retransmitting messages from another net.

This is somewhat similar to some installations of the AN/GRC-19 (T-195
transmitter, R-392 receiver), where a GRR-5 receiver was mounted side-by
side with the GRC-19, to monitor another net. I'm not aware of the GRR-5
having a backpack harness option...

The tube is a 2SH27 (the russian alphabet has a separate letter for our "sh"
sound).
There is a glass envelope under the aluminum outer shield. These tubes are
fairly commonly available in Europe.
It's not uncommon in the Soviet Block for military equipment to utilize the
same tube for all the receiver stages. It simplifies maintenance and supply
requirements. This was common in WW2 German radio equipment as well.

Another example is the R-4 military HF receiver manufactured by Tesla in the
former Czechoslovakia under the Warsaw Pact (it had a matching transmitter
as well). All the tubes are 6BA6's (or rather the European equivalent),
including the audio output tube. The only exception is the rectifier tube
and a voltage regulator (VR type) in the power supply. There is a built-in
tube tester in that receiver to monitor the emission of any tube while
operating. I have an R-4 and it's a real neat receiver.

73, Meir WF2U
Landrum, SC


> -----Original Message-----
> From: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net
> [mailto:milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net]On Behalf Of Ray Fantini
> Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 1:39 PM
> To: milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: [Milsurplus] Russian R-311 vs GRR-5
>
>
> Just picked up a Russian R-311 receiver, and like everything else I get
> the first thing that happens is it gets taken apart to see what's
> inside. After looking it over have a couple questions. First, what is
> the function of receivers like this? The 311 is about the same age as
> the GRR-5 both cover about the same frequency. Both are higher quality
> then simple moral receivers, with provisions for CW reception and
> crystal calibrators, but they don't appear to be of a quality one
> would expect in a serious communications receiver. What was their
> intended use? I have always been told that the five was an "air net
> warning "receiver or maybe its intended use was just for time checks
> and general orders. Was the R-311 used the same way? Maybe it was
> produced to monitor US operations in Viet man? Second, the R-311 uses
> only one type of tube. A 2.5 volt pentode with a loctal base, the tube
> is in a sealed metal can. Is their a civilian equal of this tube? Can
> the can be opened and the tube seen inside? The radio comes with one
> spare tube mounted inside the radio but not so curious as to cut the
> only spare open. Third, how efficient can a vibrator be? The radio is
> powered by a vibrator power supply in a compartment next to the receiver
> that is feed from a 2.5 volt wet cell. With the radio in operation it
> only draws around eight hundred milliamps, that means the radio and
> power supply consumes just about two watts total power, that's way
> better then the GRR-5, I took the inverter apart to see if it was a
> solid state unit and no, it's a mechanical vibrator, way more
> efficient then any I have seen. If you would like to see it for yourself
> you can go to my web page at: www.ka3ekh.net and look at "project of
> the week" and if anyone knows what Russian letter is between the two
> and the twenty seven in the tube number is let me know.
> Ray Fantini KA3EKH
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Milsurplus mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
>