[Milsurplus] Russ IL-14 aircraft w/ radios

[wf2u at ws19ops.com]

Ray,

Indeed the RPS is a newer design and is a much more modern receiver  
than the US-9/BC-348. Then there is also a modern design remote  
control only receiver, the US-8 (why does the later model have a lower  
number?...). I have to compare that one to the RPS and I bet it has  
the same similarity to the RPS as the US-9DM has to the US-9. I have a  
US-9 with all the cables, connectors, pilot's remote control box and  
115 V 400 Hz power supply but only one lousy schematic diagram. I  
can't seem to be able to find the manual anywhere. I need to find a  
400 Hz supply somewhere to get the receiver fully functional with the  
servos.
Interesting that the US-8 has the same footprint as the US-9 and is  
using the same shock mount, but not the same PL-103 type connector as  
the BC-348 and US-9 are using.
The US-8 has all miniature tubes - 6BA6 series  etc. equivalents.

As to the usage of different receivers with the R-807:
Even in the US different receivers were used with the ATC/ART-13. The  
USAAF used the BC-348. The Navy used the ARB with the ATC (Navy  
version of the ART-13) as the BC-348 was not a Navy radio. Later the  
ARR-15 receiver was used with the ATC, which was nice, as the ARR-15  
has the same 10 channel autotune capability as the ATC and could be  
connected to the remote channel selector.
There were also known configurations of the ART-13 transmitter being  
used with the Comman Set receivers. There was even an add-on  
modification to the Command Set receivers of motorized tuning heads  
for preset channels to work with the ART-13 presets.

IMHO another reason for the US-9 production up to 1978 (as I found  
that year referenced in a write-up on a Russian web site) may have  
been that the US-9 was most likely cheaper to produce than for example  
the RPS or US-8. These more modern receivers may have gone to  
first-line units while the US-9 went to second-echelon units, like  
transport aircraft. The same reason perhaps is maintenance  
considerations. A first-line unit like strategic bombers may have  
higher caliber personnel than a backwater transport wing. It's  
obviously easier to maintain a US-9 and it requires less traning and  
resources than to maintain an RPS or a US-8.

73, Meir WF2U
Landrum, SC





Quoting Ray Fantini <rafantini at salisbury.edu>:

> If the US-9 was in production up to 1977, where dose the RPS series   
> receivers fit in? I have seen the RPS paired with the Russian R-807   
> ( clone of the ART-13 ) and from owning both BC-348 and RPS   
> receivers know the RPS is a superior receiver, the crystal filter   
> really works, has internal calibrator and stabilized HFO although   
> the RPS requires a external power supply (115/400 cycle) and I may   
> have said this before but is the Russian R-807 the longest serving   
> military transmitter ever produced?
> Ray Fantini KA3EKH
>
>