[Milsurplus] WWII receivers

[wa5cab at cs.com]

One thing I started to comment on earlier about the question of performance 
of the common WW-II military communications sets is this.  Naval ship to 
ship and ship to shore communications, at least beyond a range of 20-50 miles, 
was almost exclusively CW before, during and for a while following WW-II.  
I never operated a RAK/RAL or an AR-88 but have spent many hours sitting in 
front of Super Pro's, BC-312 family, and RBB/RBC's.  For CW the way the Navy 
operated it into the early 60's, the RBB/RBC usually ran rings around the 
others, and probably around the AR-88's, too.  Standard Navy practice was 
that each transmitter had it's own antenna.  Receiver antennas were often 
patchable but were seldom if ever shared with any transmitter.  The RBB and RBC, 
under these circumstances, were capable of operating full break-in CW.  None 
of the others were.  My station in Ruston before I went to Vietnam in '67  
consisted of a BC-610-F or T-47/ART-13 on one antenna and any or all of the 
receivers on the other.  This was during the period when Navy MARS had 
outlawed AM but still allowed end-point stations to use CW.  The main net was on 
4010 KC (OK, technically under the then new Navy rules, 4008.5).  When I was 
sending, the recovery time of the RBB or RBC was so fast that I could still 
hear other stationsif they said or sent anything (either SSB or CW) while I 
was transmitting.  And stop with an IMI if appropriate.  The BC-779 took a 
good five+ seconds to recover.  

On the other hand, if the net ran overtime, NSS cranked up.  Daaah dit  di 
di dit  di di dit.  Not mention a bunch of di di di dah's.  And the only way 
I could copy the end of the net was with the Super Pro, by using the 
crystal filter to null them out.  So which receiver performed better depended upon 
what time it was.  :-)  If the RBB or RBC only had a crystal filter...

In a message dated 1/5/2010 9:44:07 PM Central Standard Time, 
ka1kaq at gmail.com writes: 
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 7:38 PM, John Hutchins
> <olegerityincj at austin.rr.com> wrote:
> >Al, Group -
> >
> >" from the Super-Pro in 1935 through the RBB/RBC in about 1938 to the
> >AR-88 in 1941."
> >
> >Al's absolutly correct!  6 years is a long time in the electronics
> >industry then and now.
> 
> 
> Hammarlund actually updated the circuitry and tube line up for the
> Super Pros from the SP-10 (1936) to the SP-100 (1937) to the SP-200
> (1939), going from the earlier all glass tubes to the newer metal
> octals. As much as I like my 88s, I'd still take the Super Pro hands
> down for multiple reasons. The only thing I ever found a bit odd were
> the friction drives used for tuning, yet to this day all of them still
> work flawlessly. Interesting too, is seeing that RCA adopted the
> band-in-use window scheme used in the Super Pros in their last 88
> models. RCA may have the edge in weight, though the SP-200 and
> separate supply are right up there too.
> 
> For those who haven't run across it before, the Western Historic Radio
> Museum pages are excellent reading on this topic. Henry does a great
> job providing information and time lines on the different gear,
> including a section of WWII and postwar gear along with prewar
> designs. RAK, RAL. RBA-C, etc. There's also sections on pre-war
> designs, including a page on Hammarlunds from the Comet Pro through
> the SP-600.
> 

Robert & Susan Downs - Houston
wa5cab dot com (Web Store)
MVPA 9480