[NJARC] RME and the US Navy during WW2

[john ruccolo]

Hi Joe/Rob/Al/Tom L./Tom P. and all,

Thanks to everybody for their responses. Tom Lee did
what *I* should have done, and searched on "RME
DB-20."

I was having too much fun searching on "DD-606" and
finding out about the old destroyer that this
preselector apparently "served" on.

I should have mentioned that the unit was known to the
Navy as CME-50063. Interestingly, the tag also says
"FOR GENERAL RADIO USE." So, I guess they connected it
ahead of pretty much any HF receiver.

It makes sense now -- it is well-known that during WW2
the Navy had a "phobia" about local oscillator
radiation being detected by enemy ships and
submarines. So, the preselector may have not only
souped-up some antiquated radios like the RAK/RAL
(TRFs?), but provided LO isolation for superhet sets. 

Many of us have seen examples of NC-100 variants with
extra RF stages bolted on (the RAO series).

Oh, while we're at it -- I recently bought coils for a
Navy type RU receiver, RU-17 to be exact. Anybody have
an RU for sale or trade? Any old RU will do. ;-)

And I agree with Al -- it would have been a lot easier
for a small company like RME to crank out thousands of
these relatively simple pre-selectors than it would
have been for them to build an electronically and
meachnically complex unit like a BC-348 or NC-100.

The RME-69 went out of production in 1940, and I guess
the Armed Forces had enough other choices for a
general-purpose HF receiver.

Kudos to RME for admitting that the preselector would
improve the performance of the '69, as well as the
"other guys'" receivers. None of the other prominent
comm receiver manufacturers did that.


Regards,

John

--- Al Klase <al at ar88.net> wrote:

> Visit our web site - See http://www.njarc.org
> _______________________________________________
> Joe et al,
> 
>  From Communications Receivers by Raymond S. Moore:
> 
> "RME was a small company, employing no more than 
> 120 people even during 
> its peak while manufacturing instruments during
> World War II.  It was a 
> sharply focused company."
> 
> So they never had the capacity to handle a major
> comm. receiver 
> contract, e.g., Belmont and the BC-348's, let alone
> one of their own 
> designs.  The DB-20, on the other hand, was a fairly
> unique product that 
> had been around since about 1936, and had obvious
> applications.
> 
> Regards,
> Al
> 
> JOE CRO wrote:
> > Visit our web site - See http://www.njarc.org
> > _______________________________________________
> > Hello John,
> >                 I too, have seen military variants
> of the DB20 
> > preselector, but never an RME rx with a military
> ID plate. To my 
> > knowledge, the DB-20 was used to "brighten up"
> certain receivers used 
> > by the military. As an owner of a RME-69/DB-20 I
> can tell you that 
> > they do make a big difference. The RME-69/DB20
> combo together make a 
> > hotter performer than say the RME model 99
> introduced in 1940. One 
> > would think that the model 99, and later model 45,
> would have been 
> > used for military consumption. I have a RME
> publication made sometime 
> > during the later part of WWII that lists the model
> 45 receiver, but 
> > doesn't show anything in military clothes, so to
> speak.
> >
> > I too, would like to find out more about this
> topic.
> >
> >
> 
> -- 
> Al Klase - N3FRQ
> Flemington, NJ
> http://www.skywaves.ar88.net/
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NJARC mailing list
> NJARC at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/njarc
> 



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for earth-friendly autos? 
Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.
http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/