[R-1051] Six pack attack

Thu Dec 12 17:43:00 EST 2019

URC-8 was an AM-only set meant to replace TCS. There were only 4 prototype
receivers built. Maybe 1 or 2 transmitters.
URC-7 was a USCG device.

URC-32 was the interim USN HF SSB transceiver until the URC-35. As I said
larger ships with separate antennas didn't use HF transceivers except in
emergency radio I think. There seem to be a fair number of AM-3007 100w
amps around (with weird tubes and heavier than lead). Those amps were also
used with WRC-1 (R-1051 + T-827) but I don't know how many of them were in
use (or why you'd want one instead of a RT-618 + AM-3007). Mysteries
mysteries.

Yes URC-58 was an off-the-shelf unit for Vietnam.
http://www.navy-radio.com/xmtrs/urc58/urc58-buships-01.JPG

URC-92 was an Army acquisition, not Navy, I believe.

Nick England K4NYW
www.navy-radio.com

On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 5:09 PM Ray Fantini <RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu> wrote:

> But there were huge numbers of Sunair URC-92 that were out there, the
> GSB-800 and 900 were used on all type of small craft where longer rang was
> required. Going to assume that the URC-35 was maybe intended as a
> replacement in the sixties and seventies for short range and compatibility
> with regular marine traffic but with the death of marine AM in the early
> seventies that stuff was thru? Have seen GSB-800 installed in Navigation
> and on the bridge of several ships back in the day, have seen URC-7 and TCS
> installed on museum ships but the URC-35 is nowhere to be seen.
> Wonder if the Huge URC-7 and the URC-35 were in service at the same time?
> Then again your web site shows a URC-8 that was in that time frame
> somewhat, I know the URC-25 was newer. But I have never see a URC-8 and
> other then the pictures you have I have not seen one and I did a6t least
> see a URC-35
> Somehow always thought of the URC-58 as an off the shelf move to support
> shore and brown water navy in Vietnam, and may as a form of torture for the
> ET of the day.
> But this is all speculation on my part, and as my wife will be the first
> to tell you I am often mistaken.
>
>
> Ray F/KA3EKH
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: r-1051-bounces at mailman.qth.net <r-1051-bounces at mailman.qth.net> On
> Behalf Of Nick England
> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2019 4:26 PM
> To: R-1051 Discussion Group <r-1051 at mailman.qth.net>
> Subject: Re: [R-1051] Six pack attack
>
> My (probably flawed) understanding -
> By the time of their introduction, there was really not any call for an HF
> transceiver on larger ships.
> The URC-58 (RF-301) transceiver was installed on smaller craft "pending
> availability of URC-35" - but I guess there wasn't much reason to replace
> the URC-58 with something bigger and heavier...
> On larger ships, you had separate transmit and receive antennas. The
> receivers were doubled up for diversity for receiving fleet broadcasts plus
> ship-shore terminations. Fewer transmitters were needed because they just
> didn't need to do that much HF transmission - inter-ship relay and tactical
> circuits were UHF.
> And then satellites came along.......
>
> Nick England K4NYW
> www.navy-radio.com
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 3:57 PM Ray Fantini <RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > Mr. B has one of his T-827 listed on EBay now and looking at it can
> > see it has the 1000 CPS knob so I imagine that makes it the same six
> > pack as the 1051 B/C? think only the oldest straight 1051 did not have
> > that additional knob?
> >
> > You can see the item in question at:
> >
> >
> > https://www.ebay.com/itm/NAVY-Military-Radio-T-827b-HF-Transmitter-USB
> > -LSB-AM-CW-FSK-2-30MC/113709635486?hash=item1a799f579e:g:O7YAAOSwSv9cq
> > AWf
> >
> > If anyone is interested in one of those things he told me he would
> > sell them for less. Looking at what's stuffed into a R-1051 and the
> > T-827 makes you wonder just how they fit all that into the same box for
> the RT-618?
> >
> > Question: There are tons of R-1051 receivers around, so you know a lot
> > were deployed in large numbers. For some strange reason seeing some
> > T-827 also but the RT-618/URC-35 from my experience just don't show up
> > in the same numbers. Was the URC-35 a dog? Is that why you don't see
> > them? I had one opportunity to buy one years ago and that was for a
> > lot of money so did not do it and it went fast. The Sunair URC-92 and
> > stuff is plentiful and cheap and at least in my experience a way
> > better radio but it has the advantage of being ten years newer. I have
> > owned, repaired and sold several of them along with owning several
> > R-1051 receivers and I have a strange Harris URC-94 that I love but in
> > years of dealing with this stuff have never owned and only saw maybe one
> or two URC-35 (RT-618) sets.
> >
> > Ray F/KA3EKH
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: r-1051-bounces at mailman.qth.net <r-1051-bounces at mailman.qth.net>
> > On Behalf Of Nick England
> > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2019 2:37 PM
> > To: R-1051 Discussion Group <r-1051 at mailman.qth.net>
> > Subject: Re: [R-1051] Six pack attack
> >
> > FWIW, I have started a chart of all the module part numbers towards
> > the bottom of a page at http://www.navy-radio.com/rcvrs/r1051.htm
> >
> > I have numbers for several R-1051 models and a couple of RT-618
> > models. I need to dig around for T-827 info.
> > Please let me know of additions, corrections, etc.
> >
> > Nick England K4NYW
> > www.navy-radio.com
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 12:23 PM John P. Caldwell
> > <jcaldwell at rbcos.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Ray,
> > >
> > > The six pack assembly is "sort of" interchangeable with the T-827,
> > > depending on the synthesizer module.  Six packs are NOT
> > > interchangeable between the
> > > 1051 and 1051B/C.  The 1051 six pack has a 500 CPS synth module, the
> > > 1051B and later uses a 100 CPS synth module so they can't be
> > > substituted.  I believe the same applies with the T-827
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > John Caldwell
> > >
> > > W8SDA (ex WD8INC)
> > >
> > >
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > R-1051 mailing list
> > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-1051
> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> > Post: mailto:R-1051 at mailman.qth.net
> >
> > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email
> > list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > R-1051 mailing list
> > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-1051
> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> > Post: mailto:R-1051 at mailman.qth.net
> >
> > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email
> > list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> >
> ______________________________________________________________
> R-1051 mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-1051
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:R-1051 at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> ______________________________________________________________
> R-1051 mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-1051
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:R-1051 at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>