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

[jwatkins]

Meir,

I agree, the US-9, P-807 and RPS that I have are beautifully built and
should last a lot longer than I will.  All of them work fine and I believe
that all are still in use in Russia.  The RPWS and 807 have tubes that were
last tested in 2005.  Why replace these radios when you have a huge landmass
and can use existing gear internally.  The radio gear that I am getting is
from aircraft that I am sure will be used on international routes for cargo,
etc., so they have to be updated to newer equipment.  Those aircraft that
are to be used internally most likely have the older AM gear.

Cheers,

John  WD5ENU/A45XV

John Watkins ONPQ/32
P.O. Box 81
PC 113
Muscat, Sultanate of Oman
+968-92812003 GSM
+968 24603685 Home

-----Original Message-----
From: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net
[mailto:milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of WF2U
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 4:51 AM
To: Hue Miller; Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
Subject: RE: ***Possible Spam*** Re: [Milsurplus] BC-348 Finish -
Paintquestion



> -----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

______________________________________________________________
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

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________