On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 07:23:35 -0500, "C. J. Clegg"
wrote:

On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 03:29:32 -0800, Dale wrote:

OK, you've got your tube rigs, and found a way to power them (maybe
a steam-powered generator fueled by the corpses?). Who do you plan to
listen / talk to, and why? Are they making preparations as well?

Beats me. Not my job. All I can do is try to be prepared myself, in some
minor sort of a way.

Sorry about the snotty remark re the corpses. I hope you found that
objectionable, despite your lack of comment

Nomad's points are well taken by me. But what would you hope to do
in such a situation? I have no idea where you live, but many natural
disasters occur short of a nuclear attack in which amateur radio
operators can be helpful. Are you a ham? Given your interest in radio
communications- if you aren't, I'd encourage you to become one. Part
of being prepared is practice. Getting licensed is part of that
process at the present. And you might enjoy they casual,
non-emergency QSOs in the meantime.

After all this, I have to vote for the R-388 / 51J. No product
detector, but a really nice radio With a real radio dial

Take care,
Dale

Actually the Collins designed R-388/51J series of receivers was a
predecessor design to the Collins designed R390A. See:

http://www.r-390a.net/


I had a 51J-3 & sold it because it was not in the same league as my
R390A. IMHO, my HRO's, Hammarlund Super Pro & Drakes all outperformed
the 51J by considerable margins.

The 51J is a good looking radio though. But IMO the performance doesn't
live up to the looks & the mistique.









After all this, I have to vote for the R-388 / 51J. No product
detector, but a really nice radio With a real radio dial

Take care,
Dale

Nomad wrote:
Actually the Collins designed R-388/51J series of receivers was a
predecessor design to the Collins designed R390A. See:

http://www.r-390a.net/


I had a 51J-3 & sold it because it was not in the same league as my
R390A. IMHO, my HRO's, Hammarlund Super Pro & Drakes all outperformed
the 51J by considerable margins.

The 51J is a good looking radio though. But IMO the performance doesn't
live up to the looks & the mistique.


I am curious what you found lacking in the 51J compared to the
other receivers?
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles

Richard Knoppow wrote:

I am curious what you found lacking in the 51J compared to the
other receivers?

Selectivity. The crystal filter really stinks, compared with the Collins
mechanical filters.

I had a 51J for a few years and traded it up for an R-390. Ergonomically
I liked the sliderule tuning on the 51J more, and the audio quality was
better, but the mechanical filters on the R-390 were a lifesaver.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 1/9/07 6:58 AM, in article , "Scott Dorsey"
wrote:

Richard Knoppow wrote:

I am curious what you found lacking in the 51J compared to the
other receivers?

I had the experience of using a new 51J4 along side a new TMC GPR90 in the
late 50's. I loved them both, but I always had better ability to pull out a
readable signal with the GPR90. For specific meet schedules I always
started with the 51J4, because of it's freq accuracy. These were used for
both the ham bands, and for commercial service. We also had the best of
test equipment, so I did run s/n tests on them. I don't recall the numbers,
but the GPR90 was better. Just as I love the SX28 for it's looks and
warmth, I loved the GPR90 for it's. With room lights turned down, it was a
beauty. The 51J4 is cold.

Just FYI, I also had full-time use of a new TMC GPT750 transmitter. There
was nothing not to love about it, either. My little CE 10B could easily
drive it to the max, but I preferred to run it barefoot.

Don


Selectivity. The crystal filter really stinks, compared with the Collins
mechanical filters.

I had a 51J for a few years and traded it up for an R-390. Ergonomically
I liked the sliderule tuning on the 51J more, and the audio quality was
better, but the mechanical filters on the R-390 were a lifesaver.
--scott

Richard Knoppow wrote:
Nomad wrote:
Actually the Collins designed R-388/51J series of receivers was a
predecessor design to the Collins designed R390A. See:

I am curious what you found lacking in the 51J compared to the
other receivers?
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles

I had the 51J-3/R388 so I can't speak to the J-4 which has the
mechanical filters.

I always wanted one of these as a mate to my 32V2. I always thought
that they looked like the quintessential boatanchor receiver.

The max bandwidth on mine (6KC) wasn't really wide enough for great
audio on AM
& with no product detector, it was not good for SSB. Compared to my
Super Pro (SP210), HRO's & even the Drake it had the worst audio.

Selectivity choices were limited.

Stability was excellent & that was really the radio's strong point.
Band cruising was a PITA. Lots & lots of knob turning required to get
from the low end of 160 to the high end of 10 meters.

My Drake R4A was much better for SSB, had better selectivity, was
equally stable & had better audio.
My Super Pro has far superior AM audio, a wide bandwidth choice for
HiFi AM & is a better SW bandcruiser. Same for the HRO's + the HRO's
are now my choice as the best looking boatanchor receiver with that big
round dial.

Bottom line the 51J couldn't do AM or SSB as well as my other radios, &
wasn't much fun for SW either. So out it went.

Now the R390A, that's another story entirely. Finally got one of these
recently & i find it to be a great radio. It can hear better than any
radio I've used (noise floor is lowest ever measured I believe -
143db), has 6 levels of selectivity (up to 16kc), mechanical filters,
great stability, & does great audio through the outboard HiFi.
Mechanical digital dial accuracy
& with an add on product detector it does SSB.


Terry
W8EJO

On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 04:58:58 -0800, Dale wrote:

Sorry about the snotty remark re the corpses. I hope you found that
objectionable, despite your lack of comment

I did ... but saw nothing to be gained by commenting. :-)

Are you a ham? Given your interest in radio
communications- if you aren't, I'd encourage you to become one.

I have an interest in doing that but it's only really limited. I'll
probably do it sometime this year. I do a lot of listening, but the fact
of the matter is I don't like to talk much. And I really think the modern
ham licenses have been dumbed down (no, I REALLY don't want to start
another thread on that topic, though). Whenever I have any doubts about
that, I go listen on 3910 for a while. :-(

I have received the "now that there's no code requirement anymore..."
speech but the fact is I could have passed the old Extra code test (20
WPM) in my sleep, back in the day. Nowadays I'm only comfortable around
15 or so.

"C. J. Clegg" wrote:
And I really think the modern
ham licenses have been dumbed down...
Whenever I have any doubts about
that, I go listen on 3910 for a while. :-(

the fact is I could have passed the old Extra code test (20
WPM) in my sleep, back in the day. Nowadays I'm only comfortable around
15 or so.

So get a ticket and work CW. There's not any 3910 stuff there...

"C. J. Clegg" wrote:

So get a ticket and work CW. There's not any 3910 stuff there...

Or AM.

AM attracts a different breed of operator. You'll find them to be (for
the most part) gentleman who appreciate a real conversation.

With the new voice allocations, AM activity will increase.

Terry
W8EJO