***Possible Spam*** Re: [Milsurplus] BC-348 Finish - Paint question

[WF2U]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net
> [mailto:milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net]On Behalf Of Hue Miller
> Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 4:10 AM
> To: Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: ***Possible Spam*** Re: [Milsurplus] BC-348 Finish - Paint
> question
My US-9 has a 1962 label on it, and unfortunately, just like in the case of
surplus BC-348's, one of the previous owners removed the dynamotor and
installed an AC supply in its stead (a 220 VAC one in this case).
I also have a bunch of spare Russian metal octal tubes of the common variety
(like the 6SK7, etc. equivalents) with 1972 manufacturing dates - this stuff
is in the spares box for my R250M receiver which is 1958 vintage.

Hue - the Russian stuff may be somewhat old technology but it works well - I
use a 1970's vintage CW/AM/SSB vehicular transceiver (R130M, hybrid
technology -  solid state with tube finals, which autotune a la
T-195/GRC-19) weekly and it performs flawlessly. Funny, but sometimes I even
use in on MARS!
I have another Russian airborne receiver, the US-8, which is more modern -
all miniature tubes, 6BA6, 6BE6 etc. series, all servo tuned remotely -
there is no local tuning. Anyway, if you didn't know it was Russian, the
workmanship, the components shape and the general layout could have been a
Collins product...

I also use a 1950's vintage transceiver which is mission equivalent to the
GRC-9, almost the same size and shape factor.
The receiver puts the GRC-9 to shame, it has a crystal filter position for
CW, and it's a true single frequency control transceiver, unlike the
separate Rx and Tx in the GRC-9.

The technology may have been a bit behind us, but it was reliable and
functional.

And finally, what does the "age of computing" have to do with a functional
and reliable HF receiver which could survive a nuclear EMP?

I also didn't think much of the Russian electronics, until I acquired a
number of radios and started to use them. BTW I never had a bad cap in any
of the Russian stuff...

I just call that Russian stuff new vintage - tube technology had an extra
10 - 15 years to mature over our technology in Russia...

73, Meir WF2U
Landrum, SC

>
> >Russian US-9 receiver that followed me home from Dubai.
> > It has a solid state supply in place of the dynamotor
> (original) and they
> > replaced the 6F7 with a subminiature. This one was made in
> 1976, and was in
> > service until at least 2001.
>  > John  WD5ENU/A45XV
>
> Built in 1976, used til 2001 ?????
> Man, if they had not had megaton missiles, they wouldn't have had
> any credibility
> at all.
> Antiquated equipment, a high operational failure rate, and with
> allies of dubious
> loyalty - a conventional war was something the Soviet military
> obviously planned
> for, but i wonder if they maybe suspected how quickly their
> forces would collapse,
> when operating outside the homeland.
>
> In the last couple years of the Soviet Union, when the rot was
> really obvious, i once
> heard a news commentator describe the Soviet Union as "Upper
> Volta, with rockets".
>
> Interesting equipment, no doubt, but i just had to comment on how
> hopeless it was
> to stock a military with such equipment in the age of computing.
> That idea probably
> dawned on the DPRK also. -Hue Miller
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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