[R-390] R-390 "B"

[Michael Murphy]

Instead of arguing about what exists and has gone obsolete, what about what
could have been:  what if the military had demanded one more cost reduction
attempt in the series using 1970's-type components? I will call it the B
model. What about a solid state IF module, or PTO, a digital readout and no
Ballast tube?

Mike M. WB2UID

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim Miller" <jmiller1706 at cfl.rr.com>
To: "K3PID" <k3pid at sbcglobal.net>; <r-390 at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 8:52 PM
Subject: Re: [R-390] Please spare us


> It is my understanding that the "A" model resulted from a cost reduction
> study conducted by the Signal Corps, documented in a report which you can
> read at Al Tirevold's site:   http://209.35.120.129/faq-collins-cost.pdf
>
> If the above link doesn't work, go to http://www.r-390a.net and browse the
> References for the Cost Reduction Report.  It's all there.  It was the
> result of a cost reduction effort instigated by the Government, and
Collins
> apparently responded quite nicely.
>
> To quote from the report:
>
> This report covers all the work done on the Signal Corps Cost Reduction
>
> Contract DA36-039-sc-52584 which resulted in the redesign of the Radio
>
> Receivers R-390( )/URR and R_391( )/URR. Except for the automatic tuning
>
> facility of the R-391, the two receivers are similar. These receivers,
>
> particularly the R-390, are fulfilling many needs of the Armed Forces, and
> are
>
> being produced in quite large quantities. Since the unit cost of these
>
> receivers is high, this program of cost reduction should result in a
>
> considerable saving to the Government.
>
> In addition to the primary purpose of reducing cost, every effort was made
> to
>
> improve the reliability, accessibility and performance of these receivers
>
> wherever it was possible to do so.
>
> Two finished model R-390 and one R-391 receivers were built and delivered
to
>
> the Signal Corps as called for in the contract. These are designated "A"
>
> models. One "B" model R-391 was also built and delivered to test all the
new
>
> ideas and bring them together in one receiver.
>
> The main task of the contract, then, was to reduce cost of the equipments
> and
>
> improve the reliability, accessibility and performance. The work done may
be
>
> broken down into the following phases:
>
> Phase A: Study of the Main Areas for Investigation.
>
> Phase B: Cost Analysis of the R-390 and R-391 Receivers.
>
> Phase C: Design and Experimentation.
>
> Phase D: Construction of "B" Model Receiver.
>
> Phase E: Construction of "A" Model Receiver.
>
> Phase F: Delivery of Models.
>
> Phase G: Preparation of Drawings and Final Cost Analysis.
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "K3PID" <k3pid at sbcglobal.net>
> To: <r-390 at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 7:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [R-390] Please spare us
>
>
> >I didn't intend to start a thread to once again "beat the dead horse"! In
> > fact I made no assertion as to one radio being better than the other. My
> > ONLY point was that they are indeed very different radios and to treat
> > them
> > as interchangeable is just plain wrong. In my opinion, it was
unfortunate
> > that the folks in charge at the time elected to simply append the A
> > instead
> > of specifying a whole new radio. Both are remarkable examples of
> > electronic
> > history.
> >
> > K3PID
> > Ron H.
> >
> >
> >
> > _____________________________________________________________
> > R-390 mailing list
> > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390
> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/faq.htm
> > Post: mailto:R-390 at mailman.qth.net
> > Unsubscribe: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/options/r-390
> >
>
>
> _____________________________________________________________
> R-390 mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/faq.htm
> Post: mailto:R-390 at mailman.qth.net
> Unsubscribe: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/options/r-390