[Milsurplus] Milsurplus Digest, Vol 157, Issue 59

Sun May 21 13:38:14 EDT 2017

re: Dayton HamFest:  I am very grateful you are contributing your reports to this Milsurplus site!  In my working life, and financially, there has never been a way for me to attend.  Many thanks!  -Steve k7ew

________________________________
From: Milsurplus <milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net> on behalf of milsurplus-request at mailman.qth.net <milsurplus-request at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2017 7:23 PM
To: milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
Subject: Milsurplus Digest, Vol 157, Issue 59

Send Milsurplus mailing list submissions to
        milsurplus at mailman.qth.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        milsurplus-request at mailman.qth.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
        milsurplus-owner at mailman.qth.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Milsurplus digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. WWII Navy RU- Receiver Coils (Mike Morrow)
   2. Dayton Day Two (Ray Fantini)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 19:17:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mike Morrow <kk5f at earthlink.net>
To: milsurplus at mailman.qth.net, arc5 at mailman.qth.net
Subject: [Milsurplus] WWII Navy RU- Receiver Coils
Message-ID:
        <15636194.8479.1495322225375 at mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Dave, you have some coils sets that could not have possibly been used with the sets you named if configured as you report.  Someone has boogered them up badly.  All should be the standard 4/4/4/4/6, unless you have a coil set for GF CBY-46006.

All RU coils sets (after RU-1, for which I have almost no information) have five sections as you show.  With ONE exception only, the pin number and arrangement per section is 4/4/4/4/6.  The ONLY RU-type receiver that does NOT have this exact same coil set arrangement is receiver GF (CBY-46006), which has the 4/4/4/4/4 arrangement.  The GF is the only receiver in the RU-series which does not have a BFO, and needs two less pins in the last section.

The RU receiver design was almost stable with the 1934 RU-3 CBY-46036, ecxept for adding developing some distinctions to make liaison-only and command-only versions, plus add the extension control box circuitry for the command version.  The RF coil sets from the RU-3 onward were usable in all subsequent RU models, plus RAJ (except RU-8, -9, and -15 wbich used the CBY-46064 receiver with RF tuning ratio of 2).

FWIW, here's a short RU-TYPE RECEIVER SUMMARY:

-Receivers have a high to low RF tuning ratio of 1.5, except where noted.
 (SCR-A*-183/-283 receivers use RF tuning ratio of 2.0)
-Functions of the six tube stages are shown in the third column.

   ---      RU       Other information missing.  Pre Navy Type Number system.
CBA-46000   RU-1     Other information missing.
CBY-46006   GF       RF1 RF2 RF3 RF4 DET/AGC AF.  Used with GF.
CBY-46012   RU-2     RF1 RF2 RF3 DET BFO AF.  Used with GF and others.
CBY-46012A  RU-2A    Same stages.  RF tuning ratio = 2.  Beacon band.
CBY-46036   RU-3     RF1 RF2 RF3 AGC DET BFO/AF.  Used with GF-1 and others.
CBY-46041   RU-3A    Same stages.  Used with GF-2.
CBY-46046   RAJ      Same stages.  Local control, Power 6 vdc or 120 vac.
CBY-46048   RU-4     Same stages.  Liaison service.
CBY-46048A  RU-5     Same
CBY-46048B  RU-6     Same
CBY-46048C  RU-10    Same
CBY-46048D  RU-11    Same
            RU-12
CW -46048D  RU-18    Same
            RU-19
CBY-46051   RU-4A    Same stages.  Used with GF-3.
CBY-46051A  RU-5A    Same stages.  Used with GF-4.
            RU-7     Used with GF-5.
            RU-13    Used with GF-8.
            RU-14    Used with GF-9.
CW -46051A  RU-16    Same stages.  Used with GF-11.
            RU-17    Used with GF-12.
CBY-46064   RU-8     Same stages.  RF tuning ratio is 2.  Used with GF-6.
            RU-9     Used with GF-7.
            RU-15    Used withe GF-10.

Coil set type numbers CBY-47019 to -47028 were assigned to CBY-46006.
Coil set type numbers CBY-47030 to -47039 were assigned to CBY-46012.
Coil set type numbers nt-47065 to -47077, -47088, -47098, -47099, -47105 to -47108, -47112, -47202 to -47204 work with receivers nt-46036, -46041, -46046, -46048*, -46051*.
Coil set type numbers CBY-47128*, -47143 to -47148 work with receiver CBY-46064.

Receiver CBY-46064 is identical to receiver CBY-46051A except for having a RF tuning ratio of 2 instead of 1.5.

Mike / KK5F

-----Original Message-----
>From: David Stinson <arc5 at ix.netcom.com>
>Sent: May 20, 2017 12:35 PM
>To: milsurplus at mailman.qth.net, ARC-5 <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>
>Subject: [ARC5] WWII Navy RU- Receiver Coils.
>
>Re: Coil sets for the WWII Aircraft RU-series receivers.
>
>Have manuals for RU-2A, -5, -8, -13 and -16.
>The coil sets for all of these, when examined with
>the coil rightside-up, label to the right, counting
>the coil contacts from front to back, are:
>4, 4, 4, 4, 6Dn (contact gap down, BFO coil).
>This is also the configuration in my RU-15 receiver.
>
>I made the assumption that all the RU coil sets
>from RU-2A and following were the same
>configuration.  Finally piled-up my stash of
>RU coils and surprise- there are three
>seemingly incompatable coil configurations.
>In this photo, the "front" of the coils is to
>the right and I count them right-to-left.
>https://goo.gl/photos/Lh4PRy9WiHQn4DWt9
>
>One configuration looks like that
>for SCR-183 and will plug into that rig,
>though I don't know if it works there.
>It would seem there is no BFO in these.
>That configurtion is 4-4-4-4-4.
>The third has two 6-contact: 4-4-4-6Up-6Dn.
>
>I have coils for:
>
>4-4-4-4-6Dn
>RU-5, RU-7, RU-12, RU-13, RU-15,
>RU-16, RU-17, RU-18.
>
>4-4-4-4-4
>RU-7, RU-11, RU-12, RU-18, RU-19
>
>4-4-4-6Up-6Dn
>RU-6, RU-12, RU-16, RU-18
>
>Note that RU-7, RU-12, RU-16 and RU-18 all have
>multiple configurations, -12 and -18 having all three.
>-18 and -19 were supposedly for Liaison use,
>so "No BFO winding" makes no sense.
>The coil nomenclature tags give the "correct"
>coil numbers.
>i.e. RU-16 4-4-6 and RU-16 4-6-6 have
>the manual-listed coil numbers like CW-47112.
>
>The 4-4-4-6Up-6Dn coils do show some
>evidence of being "Ham-burglered."  Was there
>some CQ article on modifying these with an
>extra BFO coil?
>However, the 4-4-4-4-4 coils do not look
>as though they have been molested.  A mod
>to get them to work in SCR-183 receivers?
>The RU-16 manual does not show
>the 4-4-4-6-6 configuration.
>
>What do you think?  Is there an explaination
> or did someone "ham-bone" these coils?
>
>Does anyone have RU-6, RU-7, RU-11,
>RU-12. RU-18 or RU-19 manuals
>that can shed light on the original coil contacts
>or explain the multiple configurations?  There's usually
>a photo of the contact side of the receiver coil
>set somewhere in the first 14 to 18 pages.
>
>TNKS OM ES 73 DE Dave AB5S

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sun, 21 May 2017 02:22:58 +0000
From: Ray Fantini <RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu>
To: "mrca at mailman.qth.net" <MRCA at mailman.qth.net>, Military Surplus
        Mail List       <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: [Milsurplus] Dayton Day Two
Message-ID: <7561989942c349ef803406a4b307bb57 at EXCHMBX01.salisbury.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Saturday arrived on site around a quarter of seven. No rain this morning but there was storms last night. The road and walkways at the event were muddy but passable.  Set up my table and attempted to pedal my wares. Unlike yesterday I did not sell any items today. Think foot traffic was down to about two thirds of what it was yesterday. Just appears that no one was interested in what I had to sell. Did not see any new sellers from yesterday and saw where several have left not to return. Know someone who decided to depart Friday night and may feel that he was right in his statement that there was no need to stay for Saturday.

I disagree in as much that the opportunity to participate in the Saturday nets on 3886 and 51.0 are highlights of the event for me.

In terms of equipment did see a couple more things as in some singars radio equipment for high prices like $1,700 and above and a vintage aviation motor generator that I bought for a small amount of money just because it was so big and heavy that I wanted it just to play around with,

The 3885 AM Net had over thirty participants with the net control station being Joes restored command set rack. Several BC-611 set, a po-go stick and a bunch of newer sets were put on the air for the event, including a home built copy of the bC-611

The 51.0 Cold War Net had more participants with radios from PRC-6, PRC-25,77 and much newer sets including German , Chez and my Russian R324 transceiver, very good turnout for all the nets with maybe one or two more than last year.

As far as the new venue goes, yes there were some problems with general admission parking and access to the site but with any new event this can be expected. And yes there was a lot of mud. No questions about that but think everyone knows that on a grass surface event you're going to have issues. There was an additional short storm this afternoon and the added rain did make a bit of a mess but not as bad as I would have suspected. I did see that several cars did get stuck in the roadways when everyone was departing but the mud could have been worse.

Of the several people I talked with most or all but one though the event was a success and had a good feeling about the future of the event.

Will write up some final thoughts later and post them but that's all for now.

Ray F/KA3EKH

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20170521/de1439aa/attachment.html>

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

______________________________________________________________
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

------------------------------

End of Milsurplus Digest, Vol 157, Issue 59
*******************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20170521/b549c7d4/attachment-0001.html>