[Milsurplus] RE: RAL receiver

[Robert Flory]

The really funny thing about this statement about the RAL, which was
probably written in the late 50s, is that the Navy no doubt still had some
in service.

Rob Flory
robandpj at earthlink.net
www.home.earthlink.net/~navyradio  WWII Navy Radio
www.home.earthlink.net/~robandpj    Les Flory Television and Electronics


> [Original Message]
> From: howard holden <holden7471 at msn.com>
> To: <robandpj at earthlink.net>; <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>;
<W2ykg at cs.com>; <w1nzr at amsat.org>; <curator at battleshipcove.com>;
<kn2x at verizon.net>; <W2rbk at aol.com>; <navrad at ptd.net>; <w2rm at arrl.net>;
<wa6ope at hotmail.com>; <toober at bestweb.net>
> Date: 10/13/2006 8:51:57 AM
> Subject: RE: RAL receiver
>
> I can't fathom why it would need any "conversion". It works just fine AS
IS, 
> and is quite suitable for amateur use. As long as one has an LM to
calibrate 
> it, and becomes familiar with the peculiarities of tuning a regen, it
does 
> rather well for most comms. We use one regularly aboard the USS Ling for
CW, 
> and have even used it for SSB, where it provides generally equal or
superior 
> reception to a Yaesu FT-101ZD.
>
> Howqie WB2AWQ/NX2ND
>
>
> >From: "Robert Flory" <robandpj at earthlink.net>
> >Reply-To: robandpj at earthlink.net
> >To: "milsurplus" <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>, "Bill W2YKG"
<W2ykg at cs.com>, 
> >"Brown Beezer" <w1nzr at amsat.org>,    "Chris Nardi" 
> ><curator at battleshipcove.com>, "Bill kn2x" <kn2x at verizon.net>, "George 
> >W2rbk" <W2rbk at aol.com>,    "Howie Holden" <holden7471 at msn.com>, "navrad" 
> ><navrad at ptd.net>, "Ray Becuna W2RM" <w2rm at arrl.net>,    "tom horsfall" 
> ><wa6ope at hotmail.com>, "William Donzelli" <toober at bestweb.net>
> >Subject: RAL receiver
> >Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 06:47:10 -0400
> >
> >I thought you would like this quote from one of the old Surplus
Conversion
> >Manuals.  I don't know which, I think I got this on BAMA or another
> >schematic download page:
> >
> >"While it is possible to use the RAL for amateur communications, it is an
> >almost hopeless antique and certainly not worthy of any conversion 
> >efforts."
> >
> >Quite a contrast to the article in September CQ, HI
> >
> >Good thing that it was not worthy of any perversion efforts.
> >
> >Rob Flory
> >robandpj at earthlink.net
> >www.home.earthlink.net/~navyradio  WWII Navy Radio
> >www.home.earthlink.net/~robandpj    Les Flory Television and Electronics
> >
> >
> >
>
>